Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Airborne Units (Aircraft)

Mr. Alport: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence what policy his Department has laid down with regard to priorities for the provision of aircraft designed to meet the special needs of Army airborne units in relation to the provision of aircraft types required for the equipment of other branches of the Royal Air Force.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence (Mr. Nigel Birch): In allocating the resources available for defence, my noble Friend has to strike a balance between the Services in the light of current strategic priorities. The needs of the Army airborne units are taken into account in arriving at the allocation.

Mr. Alport: Does that mean that priority is given to the aircraft required for Army airborne units over the normal needs of the R.A.F., because these units will be used in a priority operational rô1e should the circumstances require it?

Mr. Birch: I would not like to say that they are given priority over the R.A.F., but, as my hon. Friend knows, we have in fact taken a considerable step forward in the development of the Beverley to enable heavy equipment to be dropped for the Army. I think that the matter is well in hand.

Retired Officers' Pay (Government Decision)

Sir Edward Keeling: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence whether he will announce an in crease in the retired pay of the 359 officers

still surviving on 20th January, 1953, who were given, in 1919, rates which were to vary with the cost of living, but which, in spite of the rise in that cost, have not been increased since they were anchored in 1935 at 9½ per cent. below the 1919 rates; and how many of the 359 have died since the Minister of Defence promised on 20th January, 1953, that their case would be most earnestly considered.

Mr. Marlowe: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence whether, having regard to the inadequancy in present circumstances of the rates of pensions paid to retired officers of the Armed Forces, he will now rescind the order by which these were pegged at 9½ per cent. below the amount they had been in 1919.

Miss Ward: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence whether he will make a statement on the results of the further consideration being given to the retired officers' pay covered by the Stabilisation Order, 1935.

Brigadier Peto: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence whether he will make a statement on the retired pay of officers who suffered a 9½ per cent, cut in 1935.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Parmentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence what improvements he will make in the pay of ex-officers retired in 1919.

Mr. Birch: In answer to Question No. 2, the death of 23 of the 359 officers who were surviving on 29th January last has been reported since that date.
With permission, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will answer the general point in this Question and Questions Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 at the end of Questions.

Mr. Marlowe: Has my hon. Friend taken any steps to impress upon the Prime Minister the importance of these Questions?

Mr. Swingler: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence if he will now take steps to ensure that no officer on retired pay receives less than the rates of the 1945 code.

Mr. Birch: I regret that I am unable to give the required undertaking.

Mr. Swingler: What concession will the Prime Minister be announcing?

Mr. Wigg: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence what it would cost to raise the retired pay of officers whose rates were stabilised at 9½ per cent. below the 1919 level to the level of retired pay awarded to officers who retired after 19th December, 1945.

Mr. Birch: The total cost is estimated at about £355,000 a year.

Mr. Wigg: Will the hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that as such a small sum is involved, there would be acceptance on both sides of the House if he would agree to make this concession?

At the end of Questions—

The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): I have asked leave to reply to Questions 2 to 6 myself because the matter is not one which concerns the Ministry of Defence alone.
Her Majesty's Government have carefully considered whether, without departing from the principles which have hitherto governed pensions increase, they could grant some relief to those retired Service Officers whose pensions were affected by the operation of the sliding-scale which was in force after the First World War, and whose pensions were stabilised in 1935 at 9½ per cent. below the 1919 level. Although the stabilisation was favourable to those concerned, the cost of living has now for some years risen beyond the 1919 level and those affected have felt for a good many years past that they have cause for complaint.
The sliding-scale and the stabilisation affected not only retired officers of the Armed Forces but civilian Crown servants as well. Action to remedy the situation in their case would require legislation to amend the recent Pensions Increase Act. While the Government recognise the hardship which, in the light of later events, the pre-war stabilisation has created, they have, after much consideration, come to the conclusion that it would not be possible to treat this problem as a special case at a time when so many other demands are pressing.

Sir E. Keeling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply and the decision of the Government are wholly unacceptable to many hon. Members on both sides of the House, who will not rest content until the just grievance of these officers,

which is stronger than that of any civilians, is redressed?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Prime Minister aware that he is creating the impression that he wants to solve this problem by allowing this small and dwindling number of men to die out altogether, and so in that way the problem will be solved? In view of the very small amount of money involved, will he not reconsider this very deplorable position?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Marlowe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in all quarters of the House this is regarded as an outrageous decision, and one which must inevitably have repercussions on the Government, in that there are many hon. Members on this side of the House who are not prepared to see the Service Estimates go through without a Vote unless this matter is satisfactorily dealt with?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how much it would cost to provide the suggested increase for these retired officers and also, since he mentioned the position of ex-Crown servants, how much it would cost to provide an increase in the civil pensions?

The Prime Minister: The cost for the officers would amount to £200,000 in a year and for the civil servants about the same amount.

Mr. Shinwell: Following upon that answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not agree that the amount can hardly be regarded as substantial in view of the justification of the claim which is being made?

The Prime Minister: I think it remarkable that the right hon. Gentleman in the long years in which he and his—[Hon. Members: "That is no answer."]—colleagues were in office, if they felt so strongly on the matter, did not deal with it themselves.

Mr. Manuel: That is not good enough.

Brigadier Peto: Is the Prime Minister aware that his answer today will be regarded by those few old officers who still survive, despite the cut, as a betrayal of the trust they have previously held in him?

The Prime Minister: I was well aware that the answer I gave would not be received with satisfaction, and it was for that reason that I felt it ought not to be given by a Departmental Minister but by someone speaking with the considered authority of Her Majesty's Government.

Dr. King: The Prime Minister's case is that he cannot put right this injustice because there are so many other injustices which have to be put right. Is he aware, for example, that the pension of the totally disabled soldier today is three-quarters of what it was when we were in office, in 1946? Is it not the case that other injustices on parallel groups of he should put right this injustice and the men?

The Prime Minister: I am well aware of the very large number of hard and difficult cases which the economic movement of events since the war has brought into being all over our country.

Major Legge-Bourke: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: So the right hon. Gentleman is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman's friend now?

Major Legge-Bourke: —if he would agree that the argument which he has adduced to justify this decision simply comes down to the old question of whether we are to give priority of attention to those who have served the country in time of war or whether we are to level them up with the civilian population, and that the majority of hon. Members in this House would prefer to see those who served their country in time of war properly rewarded as befits the service they have rendered? Would he bear in mind that his answer is thoroughly unsatisfactory, not only to the generation concerned, but also to those who come after them?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot pursue this matter further at this stage.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. For the third time, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Prime Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I, for one. shall seek an early opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Later—

Mr. Paget: I beg to ask leave to adjourn the House under Standing Order No. 9 on a matter of urgent public importance, namely.
The statement made by the Prime Minister with regard to these ex-officers.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman is technically late in proposing his Motion, because I was on my feet and I had called for the Bills to be presented. But in this case I do not want to stand on that technicality, though preserving its use for a future occasion. I would point out that the subject which has been raised is no new matter, and the House should seek another method of debating the issue if it sees fit. I cannot rule that this matter is within the terms of the Standing Order.

National Service Men (Part-Time Training)

Mr. Ian Harvey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence how many National Servicemen were due between 1st January, 1953, and 1st January, 1954, to carry out their part-time training with the Reserve forces following their period of two years with the Regular forces; how many of these performed these duties with the Army; how many with the Royal Air Force; and how many were not called on to perform any duties at all.

Mr. Birch: Some 382,000 National Service men in all three Services were due to train in 1953. About 8,000 will have been called on to train in the Navy, 285,000 in the Armyand 12,000 in the Royal Air Force. About 77,000 of those otherwise due to train in all three Services will not have been called on to train.

Mr. Harvey: Does my hon. Friend not admit that this state of affairs indicates that the National Service Act is not working as was originally intended and that an unequal burden is being borne by those called up for the Army as opposed to those called up for the Air Force? Will he give an assurance that he will look into this very important matter?

Mr. Birch: The position is that in both the Royal Navy and the Army the vast majority of those due to receive part-time training do receive it. It is certainly true


that a large number of men in the Royal Air Force do not receive part-time training. The matter is engaging the attention of my noble Friend at the present time.

Mr. Shinwell: If only 12,000 National Service men who have auxiliary forces liability are being trained out of probably more than 100,000, does this not show a very alarming state of affairs?

Mr. Birch: In fact the number due for call-up in the Royal Air Force this year was 83,500 and only 71,500 are not receiving training. I agree that the great majority in the Royal Air Force are at the moment escaping part-time service.

Mr. Wigg: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that there are 100,000 men in the Royal Air Force who have Reserve liability and that of that number only 8,000 have training?

Meteorological Balloons (Radar Reports)

Lieut.-Colonel Schofield: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence what reports his Department has received of the flying object observed by two airmen over London or other parts of the United Kingdom and reported to him; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence whether he has been able to identify the flying saucer object reported by one of the members of Anti-Aircraft Command.

Mr. Birch: On 3rd November two experimental meteorological balloons were observed at different times, one by two officers in a Royal Air Force aircraft and the other by a member of Anti-Aircraft Command. There was nothing peculiar about either of these occurrences.

Lieut.-Colonel Schofield: Would my hon. Friend tell me whether a meteorological balloon will give a stronger echo on a radar echo-sounder than a large aircraft or some other solid object in the air, and, arising out of the reports which have been made to his Department, can he tell me what reports have been received from the Norwich Astronomical Society, which keeps a night watch on the sky and several of whose members on 6th October claimed to have seen a dome shaped object

emitting light from the dome at the top of the object?

Mr. Birch: Meteorological balloons are fitted with a special device in order that they shall produce a large echo on a radar screen. I am afraid that I am not very closely in touch with the Norwich Astronomical Society.

Mr. Bellenger: Although the House will, no doubt, accept the explanation which the Parliamentary Secretary has given, which is not different to many other explanations regarding similar phenomena here and elsewhere, will he now take steps to warn the Royal Air Force and Anti-Aircraft Command when these balloons are in the sky so that these Services know what is happening and to prevent unnecessary alarm in other quarters?

Mr. Birch: The trouble arose because the two balloons were allowed to escape or were let off at an unusual time, but I hope we shall not have any more trouble like this.

Mr. Isaacs: Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that this story about flying saucers is all "ballooney"?

Mr. Birch: I think that the right hon. Gentleman's appreciation is very nearly correct.

Corporal Punishment (Children)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence how many cases during the last 12 months have been reported to him in which officers in the Armed Forces have administered corporal punishment to the children of other ranks.

Mr. Birch: None, Sir.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Has the Parliamentary Secretary not been in touch with the Air Ministry about a recent case of a Royal Air Force station near Doncaster, where two sons of Service personnel were given a very good hiding by a corporal in the R.A.F. on the instructions of the station commander? Will the hon. Gentleman make it quite clear that action of this kind, in competition with magistrates and the police, is not officially authorised by the Service Departments?

Mr. Birch: It is certainly not officially authorised.

Home and Overseas Service (Comparative Costs)

Mr. Wigg: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence the cost of maintaining a National Service man and a regular Royal Navy rating, airman and soldier at home and overseas, separate figures being given for each category.

Mr. Birch: I will, with permission, circulate a statement in the Official REPORT.

Following is the statement:

APPROXIMATE AVERAGE ANNUAL COSTS OF MAINTENANCE OF REGULARS AND NATIONAL SERVICE MEN AT HOME AND OVERSEAS


—
Regulars
National Service Men



£
£


Army:




Home
365
300


Overseas
465
385


R.A.F.:




Home
385
355


Overseas
485
445

(i) Owing to the different circumstances of the Navy and in particular the fact that so large a proportion live and move in H.M. Ships, it is impossible to produce figures which could usefully be compared with those quoted for the Army and R.A.F.

(ii) The figures given are average rates for the Services as a whole and cover pay, allowances, rations, clothing, personal equipment, accommodation, medical services and travel. They exclude the cost of unit equipment (aircraft, vehicles, etc.) and training and administrative expenses.

(iii) The differences in costs between Services are explained by such factors as—

(a) At home—the variations of trade and rank structure; the varying amounts of travelling due to different geographical distribution;
(b) Overseas—wide differences of distribution leading to variations in overseas allowances, clothing scales and travel.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Leave, Japan

Miss Burton: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the rates of pay for British soldiers serving in Korea as members of the United Nations forces fall considerably below that of other members; that, as a result, it is not possible for them to take full advantage of leave in Japan; and if he

will therefore consider reservation by the War Office of places of entertainment in Tokio so that these may be available free to men on leave who wish to go.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): I have examined this suggestion with sympathy. Although I well know the differing rates of pay, the cost of living in Tokio has been carefully gone into and our men should be able to afford, and, indeed, do take, a good leave in Japan. With regard to the latter part of the Question, I think that the hon. Lady may have night clubs in mind. Those on the spot do not favour this suggestion.

Miss Burton: In wishing to make quite clear that the night clubs in Tokio are not similar to those in this country—[Laughter]—that is an assumption—may I ask whether the Minister is aware that there is a genuine feeling among correspondents out there that the men are not able to take full advantage of their leave? Would the right hon. Gentleman be able to look into this matter once more?

Mr. Head: Yes, Sir; I will certainly look into it. I understand the hon. Lady's various differentiations about night clubs and night places, but a good deal is arranged by the W.V.S. and other organisations with regard to that. Perhaps the hon. Lady will have a word with me on the subject.

Concert Parties, Korea

Miss Burton: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement concerning the number of concert parties visiting British troops in Korea during the month of December; and how many times it should be possible for each man to see such a show.

Mr. Head: Two concert parties will visit our troops in Korea during December. It is also hoped that a third party will go there from Australia towards the end of that month. Apart from men who may be on duty on the day of the party's visit, every man should be able to see each of the parties.

Miss Burton: Without wishing to detract from the good services of the concert parties that will be going to Korea in December, may I ask whether the Secretary of State is aware that there are several disquieting reports about the way


in which the War Office looks after this aspect of the matter? Would he feel able to consider the suggestion that either the War Office or the artistes themselves should compile a pool of names of people willing to go out to Korea to entertain the troops?

Mr. Head: Thanks to Mr. Littler, Mr. Beaumont and others, leading authorities of the stage got together and gave us the names of stars. I understood that the quality had improved very much since that Committee was formed. It has done very good work indeed, and on the whole the standard of show lately has gone up.

Graves, Germany (Union Jack)

Captain Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for War why the Union Jack is not flown over the graves of British Service men in the British Zone of Germany.

Mr. Head: The Union Jack is flown over the graves of British Service men in foreign countries only on ceremonial occasions. This is in accordance with the practice of the Imperial War Graves Commission for the past 30 years.

Captain Duncan: Is that carried out in Germany today?

Mr. Head: So far as I know, that is carried out in all cemeteries.

Korea (N.A.A.F.I. Establishments)

Miss Burton: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that many Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes' cafes serving our troops in Korea close down at 6 p.m.; and, as this is too early for those coming off duty, if he will make arrangements for the closing hour to be altered.

Mr. Head: The closing hour of all establishments operated by the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes in Korea is 9.30 p.m., apart from two road houses which close at 8 p.m. and two at 7 p.m.

Miss Burton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although this Question was put down in the belief that the statements contained in it were correct. I am very glad that the Minister's facts prove otherwise? Is he aware how very glad the troops are that the Salvation Army is

to open cafes in Korea, as its work has been very much appreciated?

Mr. Head: I can bear that out. I know that the work which the Salvation Army has done all over the world for the Army is much appreciated.

Anti-Aircraft Camps, Langham (Noise)

Mr. Gooch: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the disturbance caused to residents by the movement of guns and vehicles at all hours of the day and night and drill in the early hours of the morning, on a site next to Langham Parish Church, Norfolk; and if he will take steps to abate the nuisance.

Mr. Head: As this village is centred within a number of anti-aircraft camps, there is unavoidably a good deal of Army activity in and around it and a certain amount of noise is inevitable when training is going on. I have, however, reminded those responsible of the need to avoid as far as possible disturbance to the residents.

Mr. Gooch: Does the Secretary of State not agree that these people have exercised considerable patience, because this nuisance went on all during the war and has continued for eight years since? I hope that the Minister can settle this matter once and for all.

Personal Cases

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for War when No. 22766735 Private R. W. Powell reported for Army service; what was his medical grade; on what grounds it has since been changed; how often he has reported to the medical officer; and, in view of all the circumstances, if he will give further consideration to the discharge of this soldier as being unsuitable for Army service.

Mr. Head: This soldier reported for service on 5th February this year. He was then assessed as medically fit for full duties. In June, owing to a foot disability, his medical assessment was changed to "fit for base duties, worldwide." In September, owing to an eye condition, his employment was further restricted to base duties in temperate climates only. He has reported sick to


his medical officer four times and has twice been examined by a specialist. I have carefully reviewed his case and am satisfied that this soldier's medical category is correct and that his duties are appropriate to his grading.

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the physical condition of 22931249 Private Tinsley, 8S San Block, No. 1 Platoon, A Company, 1st Training Battalion, Blandford, Dorset, who has been accepted into the Armed Forces; how far this soldier performs military duties; and if he has considered the advice that this man's medical adviser has given that grave damage may ensue if the plate in this soldier's arm is disturbed as a result of a knock or bang.

Mr. Head: Yes, Sir. This soldier, who joined last month, was found unfit to undergo normal training in the Army and is being employed on light duties. It has now been decided to bring him before a medical board with a view to discharge from the Army.

Mr. Proctor: Does the Minister not think that this case indicates great inefficiency on the part of some Government Department in accepting a soldier of this low category into the Army, and that it does an injury to the person concerned, to his family, and is a waste of public money?

Mr. Head: I have looked into this man's case. He had trouble in his shoulder, which was almost identical to what I had myself, and it is not easy to identify. It was found that it interfered with his duties even if they were light duties, and, therefore, he is going. But to make an immediate diagnosis of the extent of that injury is not easy.

Mr. Proctor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the man concerned told the doctor of this injury and he said, "Can you lift your arm up so far?" The man replied that he could, and the doctor said, "That will do."

Mr. Head: I do not think that is so. I read this case carefully. The man said he had a plate in his arm which did not show up in his X-ray. It was felt that he had overstressed the extent of the damage, but events have proved that he

is not fit for Army service and he is being discharged.

Mr. Proctor: Will the right hon. Gentleman have the case further examined to avoid a repetition of this sort of thing?

Mr. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) on what evidence it was decided to post 22443865 Private Armour, 1st Battalion, King's Own Scottish Borderers, as illegally absent;
(2) what steps have been taken, and are being taken, to trace 22443865 Private Armour, S Company, 1st Battalion, King's Own Scottish Borderers, who disappeared in Korea in May, 1952.

Mr. Head: The evidence on which this action was taken was that Private Armour, who had been in the company of another soldier on the day of his absence, later failed to parade for sentry duty. There were no special reasons to explain his absence and he was at the time in a safe area. All possible inquiries have been and are being made.

Mr. Ross: Is the Minister aware that this lad had only a few months to serve, and that in a letter to his parents his commanding officer, after paying tribute to the boy's steadiness of character, said that in his opinion his absence was not voluntary? In view of that fact and the fact that another man of this battalion, who later became a prisoner of war, writing home at that time said that he had seen this lad's dead body, a story which he has now confirmed since here turned from the prisoner of war camp, will the right hon. Gentleman come to a definite conclusion about this boy's absence?

Mr. Head: There has not been any confirmation about the dead body, and, indeed, the evidence on that has been very flimsy. As far as going absent is concerned, if a man is in a safe area and goes absent he is, ipso facto illegally absent until events prove where he has gone.

Mr. Ross: How long will this unsatisfactory position continue for this man's family, and particularly for his mother, before events compel the Secretary of State to change his mind?

Mr. Head: I regret very much the uncertainty for the parents; I could not


regret it more. But, if a man disappears into thin air without trace and with only one flimsiest rumour to go on, we can do nothing more than go on inquiring into the matter and try to find the answer.

Mr. Ross: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

T.A. Centres (Building Programme)

Mr. Ian Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is satisfied that the present building programme for the Territorial Army is the most economical that can be devised; and whether proposed Territorial Army centres are in every case designed to meet the essential needs of modern units.

Mr. Head: New scales of accommodation were produced in 1950 and a number of centres have been built to these scales. It is therefore now possible to review them:this is being done and will soon be completed.

Territorial Associations (Overlapping of Responsibilities)

Mr. Ian Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will set up a committee to review the position of Territorial Associations in the structure of the national Army having special regard to the overlapping of responsibilities between them and the military authorities.

Mr. Head: I hope to make a statement about this in the near future.

Charges of Cowardice

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for War who is authorised to sanction the preferment of a charge of cowardice against a soldier.

Mr. Head: The authority for this purpose is the superior officer, normally a general officer, who has power to convene a court martial.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that the publicity which results from such a tribunal is offensive to a great many people? Does he think that to maintain the morale of the Army it is really necessary that such tribunals should be conducted, especially in public?

Mr. Head: This offence is one for which a court martial may legally be convened. If those on the spot judge that a court martial is demanded and the convening officer agrees, I think that if a military offence is involved the court martial should go ahead, however distasteful it may be.

Condemned Meat, Germany (Disposal)

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that 90,000 tins of meat were dumped into the sea, near Cuxhaven, by the British Army on or about 16th October; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Head: Yes, Sir. This tinned meat was found to be infected with bacteria. On medical advice all stocks of this meat were therefore condemned and destroyed.

Mr. Fernyhough: Is not the position that this meat was found to be in this condition because it had been left in storage too long? Does the right hon. Gentleman not feel that there was great ineptitude and inefficiency, and that it would have been better if the meat had been looked at and distributed to people who would have made good use of it?

Mr. Head: No, Sir. A claim against the suppliers is now being pursued, and I hope as a result of it that there will be no loss of public funds.

Commissions (Foot Guards)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for War the basis of selection for a potential officers' squad at the Guards Depot as a necessary preliminary for National Service men who wish to be commissioned into Foot Guards regiments.

Mr. Head: As in all regiments where applicants greatly outnumber vacancies, selection is based on an interview and the efficiency shown during preliminary training.

Mr. Hynd: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that it is efficiency that is the basis of the interview and not the old school tie.

Mr. Head: There are a very large number of applicants. They want good officers and, by past and present results, they get them.

Airborne Units (Training and Equipment)

Mr. Alport: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is satisfied that adequate facilities exist for training in the tactical handling of Army airborne units; and whether, in the event of their employment in an operational rôle, equipment of all the types necessary is satisfactory for this purpose.

Mr. Head: Yes, Sir. I think that we get a fair share of the resources available. As regards existing equipment, this is satisfactory for use in operations with the Hastings and Valetta aircraft. When the Beverley is taken into use, new airborne equipment will be necessary and this is now being developed by my Department and the Air Ministry.

Mr. Alport: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the Beverley aircraft is in all circumstances suitable for the operations which these units could be called upon to perform?

Mr. Head: I think it will be the best aircraft of its kind for airborne operations not only in this country but, so far as I know, anywhere. I hope that as soon as possible we shall get a supply of these aircraft which I think will be a very great asset to our airborne forces.

Mr. Alport: Can my right hon. Friend say when the Beverley is likely to be available for training purposes for these units?

Mr. Head: I know, but for various reasons I would rather not say.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is my right hon. Friend really satisfied with his answer to the first part of the original Question in regard to the Parachute Brigade in the Canal Zone?

Mr. Head: The Parachute Brigade in the Canal Zone has had a good deal of training, but it has been interfered with by operational moves. I do not think that one can expect them, with the various duties which the R.A.F. has got to do, to get as much jumping as one could wish, but on the whole I think they have done fairly well.

Prisoners (Handcuffs)

Mr. Shurmer: asked the Secretary of State for War how far it is the practice to handcuff National Service men

through the streets of cities and on long train journeys when they are being escorted back to depots under arrest.

Mr. Head: It is not the practice to handcuff prisoners. Exceptionally a prisoner may be handcuffed if, for example, he has already broken away from his escort and been recaptured.

Mr. Shurmer: Is the Minister aware that I have a case of a young man who left the Merchant Service and reported at the employment exchange. He was arrested and held for an escort, who marched him through the streets of Birmingham handcuffed without giving him the opportunity of seeing his parents or picking up his personal kit? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that if it is necessary to handcuff a man he should be taken in a private carriage and have the vehicle to himself instead of it being open to the public?

Mr. Head: Normally if it is necessary to handcuff a prisoner that is done, but if the hon. Gentleman will let me have particulars of that case I will look into it.

Lieut.-Colonel Carne, V.C.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War what appointment is being offered to Lieut.-Colonel Carne, V.C.

Mr. Head: His next appointment has yet to be decided.

Mr. Bellenger: In deciding this gallant officer's next appointment, will the circumstances of his conduct in Korea be very much taken into account?

Mr. Head: Yes, Sir, I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance.

Seaweed, South Coast (Removal)

Mr. H. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will employ troops in order to clear seaweed from the South Coast holiday resort beaches so that the breeding grounds for coelopa frigida and other flies may be exterminated.

Mr. Head: No request has so far been made.

Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this new type of fly has now infested a 150-mile stretch of the beach, that they are now advancing on London,


that they travel at the rate of eight miles a week, and at that rate they will be in the centre of London within three weeks? Will my right hon. Friend and the Government treat the matter as one of national importance, and will he co-operate by lending powerful flame throwers and troops for an experimental period?

Mr. Head: I am informed that the rate of reproduction of coelopa frigida is much retarded in the winter. I am also informed that there is a reasonable chance in the case of high winds or gales that the seaweed will be washed away.

Mr. Marlowe: As there are later Questions on the Order Paper to the Minister of Housing and Local Government which are not likely to be reached, may I ask my right hon. Friend to impress upon the Government the necessity for co-ordinated action to be taken in this matter by the central Government as it is one of pressing importance and there is the possibility of an epidemic unless urgent action is taken?

Mr. Manuel: If the right hon. Gentleman is considering lending soldiers to do this work, will he take particular care that the cost of this labour will not be lower than the wages paid to the civilians who normally would do such work?

Mr. Head: They would only get the Army rate of pay.

Mr. Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that a large section of the population would much resent it if the Army were turned into a body of seaside scavengers?

Mr. Fernyhough: If and when the authorities decide to move this seaweed and if they do not know where to dump it, will the military remember my garden?

National Service (R.A.P.C. Entrants)

Mr. Hayman: asked the Secretary of State for War why the primary training of National Service men entering the Royal Army Pay Corps has to be completed in one month.

Mr. Head: The National Service entrant to this Corps does not complete his basic training in one month. His basic military training is not, however,

carried out continuously for six weeks, but is spread over a longer period because he begins technical training in his fifth week.

Mr. Hayman: Will the Minister bear in mind that I have had information that the primary training in one unit has to be completed in a month, that at that place the men training are on duty from 5.45 a.m. until almost midnight, and does he not think that this is too much for a non-combatant unit, and will he take steps to see that it is regulated?

Mr. Head: If the hon. Gentleman will let me have particulars, I will look into them, but I know of no unit in the Army where normally day-to-day duties start at 5.45 and end at midnight.

Mail Bags, Singapore (Loss)

Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: asked the Secretary of State for War in what circumstances 56 bags of Army mail, containing 250,000 letters, came to be delayed at Singapore; what was the earliest date of posting of these letters; and what steps he is taking to deal with those responsible for this delay and to prevent a similar occurrence in future.

Mr. Head: I should like to say how very much I regret the anxiety and inconvenience which must have been caused. A full and immediate inquiry into the circumstances is being made and I do not wish to make a statement until I have all the facts.

Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the holding up of a quarter of a million letters in this way is a very serious matter, and in view of the importance which Service men and women serving overseas attach to receiving their mail, will he see that, if the inquiry should reflect upon any individual, the gravity of the matter is brought home to him?

Mr. Head: From information I have had so far, I do not think it is as many as a quarter of a million, though it may well be a very large number. That does not alter the fact that I realise fully the grief, inconvenience and disappointment caused by an accident of this kind, which is the last thing I should wish to happen.

Mr. H. Morrison: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why this Government is


so expert—whether it is the War Office or the Post Office—in losing mails or getting things stolen and one thing and another? Why is it that we are subject to this persistent incompetence?

Mr. Snow: On the rather important matter of the subject of this Question, may I ask the Minister whether his attention has been drawn to a newspaper report in which it was stated that a sergeant had been arrested in this connection? Is there no officer who has direct responsibility who could take the charge concerned? Why should it be left to a sergeant to take the rap?

Mr. Head: I should prefer not to go into the details until I have the full report. The matter is the responsibility of the Army Postal Services in conjunction with the civil authorities. The inquiry is now going on and it will be much more satisfactory if I make a full statement at a later stage.

N.A.A.F.I. Purchases (Service Units)

Mr. Arbuthnot: asked the Secretary of State for War how far it is the policy of Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes to bar a Service unit from buying goods from Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes because that unit gets other goods elsewhere; and whether he has any statement to make on a recent incident in Germany, particulars of which have been sent to him.

Mr. Head: It is no part of the policy of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes to bar a Service unit from buying goods from their establishments because the unit gets other goods elsewhere. N.A.A.F.I. have not been able to trace any instance in Germany where such a policy has been applied.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Pottery Exports

Dr. Stross: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has noted the decline in the export of pottery during 1952 and 1953, as compared with 1951; and what are the factors which may account for the decline.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): Yes, Sir; but 1951 was a peak year when exports of domestic pottery reached a level almost double that of 1938 by weight and about seven times that of 1938 by value. The main factors accounting for the decline since 1951 have been the imposition of import restrictions abroad, increased foreign competition in overseas markets, and some reduction in consumer demand, but there has been some improvement in exports in the last few months compared with the same period in 1952.

Dr. Stross: On the point of increased competition from abroad by manufacturers in other countries, will the Minister bear in mind that the fuel costs in this industry form a high proportion of the overhead charges? Would he, therefore, use his influence with the Gas Board to see that gas supplied to this industry, which is now used in the main for firing, might be offered at a smaller charge than is at present entailed?

Mr. Amory: We are watching the position of this important export industry with the greatest attention, and I will take into consideration the point made by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bottomley: Would the Minister also agree that the removal of controls has had a serious effect, and that the Government ought seriously to consider the question of leaving to free enterprise the ruin that will come as a result of that policy?

Mr. Amory: I think that this industry, as most others, is well content on the whole with the policies which Her Majesty's Government have initiated.

Overseas Engineering Contracts

Mr. Gower: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about certain engineering contracts in Commonwealth and other countries recently awarded to foreign firms in competition with British firms; and what steps he will take to enable British firms to compete for such contracts upon an equal and fair basis.

Mr. Amory: I am aware that certain engineering contracts abroad have recently been awarded to foreign competitors. Circumstances differ from case to case, but the main cause appears to


have been the ability of our competitors to quote lower prices. The Government will do all they can to ensure that our manufacturers compete on equal terms. But the decisive factor is our competitive power and the major responsibility rests upon everyone in industry to keep down costs and improve productivity.

Mr. Gower: Will the Minister tell the House if he can estimate to what extent the success of our foreign competitors has been due to Government subsidies, or others forms of special assistance, given to firms in those countries?

Mr. Amory: My hon. Friend will realise that it is extraordinarily difficult to get to the bottom of this. On the whole, we think that this influence has been exaggerated, but if my hon. Friend or anyone else has any definite evidence, we should like to have it. In the meantime, through O.E.E.C. and other inter-Governmental organisations, we are taking up the question of export incentives and quasi-subsidies, I think not without some encouraging progress.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the biggest single factor causing the loss of contracts, both in the Commonwealth and elsewhere, is the long delivery dates which many of our manufacturers quote in comparison with those of other countries, and that a further serious effect is caused by the fact that the Treasury in this country will not allow the same credit terms to some of these traders as are allowed by the treasuries of some other countries?

Mr. Amory: Again I say to the right hon. Gentleman that whilst I agree that delivery dates come into this, and have accounted in some cases for the loss of contracts, we should like to have definite evidence where that is the trouble. Even more important than long delivery dates is our failure in some cases to keep to the delivery dates that have been given.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a big order for locomotives has been lost to Scotland and that there is great concern about India for the first time placing that order in other countries?

Mr. Amory: I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. We are

concerned about the loss of that locomotive order also but, if he looks into it, I think he will find that the main reason, though not the only reason, was the substantial difference in prices.

Mr. Lee: Since the Minister gave as the main reason the ability of our foreign competitors to quote lower prices than we do, will he not inform his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the slash in food subsidies has deliberately pushed up food prices in this country?

Horticultural Produce (Tariffs)

Sir L. Ropner: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will extend until 31st December the prohibition of import of onions.

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in the light of representations recently made to him, he is now able to postpone the date on which onion imports will be resumed.

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the expiry of the period of notice for objections to the waiver granted to Britain under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Her Majesty's Government will now announce without delay its policy in regard to tariffs for horticultural imports from the Continent, so that the home producer may be aware of the prospects when determining what crops to grow for the coming season.

Mr. Amory: My right hon. Friend hopes to be in a position to announce the decisions of Her Majesty's Government in regard to tariffs for certain horticultural products, including onions, early next week. He will, at the same time, deal with the question of import licensing arrangements for these products, and I would, therefore, ask my hon. and gallant Friends and the hon. Gentleman to await that announcement.

Sir L. Ropner: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is an ample supply of home-grown onions to last until the end of December?

Mr. Amory: We are aware that there are rather larger quantities of home-grown onions available now than there were last year.

Mr. Harold Davies: As a supplementary to Question No. 50, may I ask whether the Ministry have had any talks about the lists with the National Farmers' Union branches in all the horticultural producing counties? Will the right hon. Gentleman see that our own horticultural producers are protected in this connection?

Mr. Amory: We have had many consultations, of course, and have been in the very closest touch for many months with the National Farmers' Union on the question of tariffs on horticultural products. I think that I can assure the hon. Member that what he has in mind is really one of our main objects.

Major Legge-Bourke: Would my right hon. Friend have some inquiry made into what is going on at the port of Boston in Lincolnshire? According to my information, onions are coming into that port in anticipation of the ban being lifted on 1st December. Surely that must be wrong.

Mr. Amory: I will look into that point.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Will the Minister give an assurance that the step now being taken will not mean that another article of food goes up in price?

Welsh Tourist Board (Grant)

Mrs. White: asked the President of the Board of Trade what reply has been made to the request of the Welsh Tourist Board that it should receive a direct grant.

Mr. Amory: The Welsh Tourist Board has appealed against the decision not to provide a direct grant, and has now been told that its request for financial assistance will be reconsidered when the survey of the Welsh tourist industry, which the British Travel and Holidays Association is undertaking at my request, has been completed.

Mrs. White: While the amount of those grants may depend upon the result of the survey, would the Minister not agree with the principle that a direct grant is desirable? Would he also consult with the Minister for Welsh Affairs about the desirability of not making Welsh organisations appear subservient to British ones?

Mr. Amory: I can assure the hon. Lady straight away that that is no part

of our object at all. As regards the first part of her supplementary question, the object of these grants is to attract overseas visitors to Britain, and therefore in general the planning of expenditure can best be carried out by the central organisation, the British Travel and Holiday Association. However, the point which she has raised generally will not be overlooked. We are anxious to encourage overseas visitors to visit the Principality in as great numbers as possible.

Mr. H. Morrison: Is the Minister aware that that is no answer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) as to whether the Minister for Welsh Affairs is being consulted? Surely that is what he is for. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the opinion on this subject of the Minister specially designated to protect Wales?

Mr. Amory: My right hon. and learned Friend has met the Welsh Tourist Board and has begun already to assert friendly pressure on me and my Department. We have been in very close touch on this matter.

Mr. Gower: Can my right hon. Friend say whether his Department is ready to succumb to such friendly pressure?

Mr. Amory: I can only tell my hon. Friend that whenever I have visited Wales I have had such a friendly reception that I have been wanting to go back there as early as possible.

Mr. G. Thomas: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate how long it will be before a reply to the Welsh Tourist Board will be forthcoming?

Mr. Amory: I am hoping that the survey which I mentioned will be completed within three or four weeks. We shall have the result then and we shall consider it without any unnecessary delay.

Titanium Dioxide

Mr. Turner: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will furnish particulars of the amount of titanium dioxide sold by the United Kingdom to Canada during the past 12 months; if he is aware of the concern felt by British manufacturers about the present shortage of this material; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Amory: I regret that the information for which my hon. Friend asks is not available since exports of titanium dioxide are not separately recorded in the trade statistics. To ensure as far as possible that the valuable market which has been built up in Canada should not be lost, we thought it right not to ask manufacturers to divert supplies to meet the temporary shortage at home, particularly since new plant is in the course of erection. In the meantime, however, it has been decided to allow sufficient dollar imports to meet all reasonable requirements.

Mr. Turner: Whilst I appreciate that my right hon. Friend cannot give exact figures, may I ask whether a matter of 7,000 tons would be about the correct figure? Secondly, does he appreciate that the purchase of titanium dioxide from Germany and other Continental sources would be approximately 300 per cent. in excess of current home supplies?

Mr. Amory: I am sorry that I cannot confirm whether my hon. Friend is right or wrong in the figures which he has just given, because I am unable to separate them from other statistics. But I would emphasise the temporary nature of this difficulty and how highly undesirable it would be to interrupt an increasing export business.

Mr. Bottomley: Would not the right hon. Gentleman emphasise the general importance of increased exports to Canada?

Mr. Amory: I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman.

Development Areas

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the President of the Board of Trade which Development Areas he is proposing to de-schedule.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): My right hon. Friend has not yet decided to propose the removal of any Development Area from the First Schedule to the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945.

Mr. Chetwynd: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman impress on his right hon. Friend that it would be premature at this stage, in the present difficult economic situation, to consider this matter at all?

Mr. Strauss: If the hon. Member will study the provisions of Section 7 of the 1945 Act he will see what it is the duty of the President to do, but I would point out—as the hon. Member may already know—that no action can take place before the local authorities concerned have been consulted and that the approval of this House must be obtained.

Mr. H. Wilson: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that the position of most Development Areas is still extremely vulnerable, especially under present conditions? Will he give an assurance to the House that there will be no question of de-scheduling any areas until the President has produced the long promised White Paper on the question of development of the areas as a whole?

Mr. Strauss: The right hon. Gentleman is in error in thinking that a White Paper has been promised and I would refer him to answers given on this subject last week. On the other question about taking into consideration all those matters which it is the duty of the President under the Act to take into consideration, I promise that will be done.

Mr. Nicholson: As a lover of the English language, will my hon. and learned Friend give his opinion of the word "de-scheduling"?

Mr. Strauss: My hon. Friend will notice that I did not use that word.

Subsidised Fruit Imports

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the decision of the United States Government to give a subsidy on fruit imported into Britain; what steps are being taken to protect the home producer from this form of competition; and whether Her Majesty's Government will investigate the possibilities of bulk purchase of any surplus of horticultural commodities from abroad which may be in short supply here.

Mr. Amory: As my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Food stated in a Press notice on 23rd October, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member, we have made a bulk purchase of United States raisins. No arrangements


are at present contemplated for the import of any other subsidised fruits from the United States. As regards the last part of the Question, the hon. Member will be aware that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to return the import of commodities to private hands as soon as possible.

Mr. Davies: Whilst thanking the Minister for that answer and noting that the Government have reverted to bulk purchase, may I ask whether, when they were discussing the question of a dollar subsidy per box of American pears, the matter was discussed with the Commonwealth Fruit Council, who denounced this method of selling? Will he protect our horticulturists from a recrudescence of dumping?

Mr. Amory: I should like to assure the hon. Member that every deal of this kind is considered very carefully from every possible angle.

Mr. Gaitskell: Can the right hon. Member say how much the subsidy was in this case and whether it will be passed on to consumers in this country or retained by the Treasury?

Mr. Amory: I am afraid I am unable to answer either of those two questions without notice.

Commander Donaldson: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that if fruits are imported from the American Continent prior consideration will be given to Canadian products as against those of the United States of America?

Mr. Amory: We are taking all the raisins that are on offer from the Commonwealth.

Mr. Gaitskell: Am I to understand from the answer to my previous question that the Government have not made up their mind, or that the right hon. Gentleman does not know?

Mr. Amory: I think the answer is as I expressed it, that I am unable to answer those two questions without notice.

Mr. Davies: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman tell the House frankly whether or not his Department knows that pears, according to the growers, are being

imported into this country at a subsidy of a dollar a box?

Mr. Amory: If the hon. Member will put down a Question on that rather separate subject, I shall do my best to answer it.

British Industries Fair (Responsibility)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement on the future of the British Industries Fair.

Mr. Amory: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend's Exhibition Advisory Committee has now made a Report which will be published shortly as a White Paper. Her Majesty's Government have accepted the recommendations of the Committee that industry should take an even more direct interest in the running of the London Section of the British Industries Fair, and that, therefore, responsibility for it should be transferred to a new non-profit making company limited by guarantee. The board of the company will be persons nominated by trustees representative of industry, including, I hope, the Trades Union Congress and a Government nominee. The Government will assist the company by guaranteeing the initial working capital for a period of five years. The 1954 Fair will be run by the Board of Trade in the usual close collaboration with industry and the 1955 Fair will be run by the new company. Legislation will be needed and a Bill will be introduced in due course.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Can my right hon. Friend say what will be the position in regard to the Birmingham Section and, secondly, what arrangements are being made for overseas publicity?

Mr. Amory: The Birmingham Section will continue to be run as now, by the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce. The Birmingham Chamber of Commerce, in addition, will have a nominee on the board of the new company. As to the question of overseas publicity expenditure, the Government have accepted, as a temporary measure, the recommendation that they should continue to provide money for this purpose, although the amount will not necessarily be to the full extent of £100,000 a year, which is recommended.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British Industries Fair, London Section, has been run by the Board of Trade with continuing success since 1915 and it is a very serious matter to suggest a change? Am I correct in saying that a Committee under Sir Ernest Goodale considered the matter? Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we are to have a report from that Committee?

Mr. Amory: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is an important matter. I expect he is aware that over the last year or two there have been growing difficulties in maintaining the impetus of the London Section of the B.I.F. We believe this change will give the London Section a better chance for the future. I ask the right hon. Member to await the White Paper and, if he is not happy after reading it, if he cares to have a talk with me I promise him that we shall attach weight to his views in view of his experience at the Board of Trade.

Sir H. Williams: When my right hon. Friend uses the term "non-profit making" does he mean "non-profit distributing," because it is very desirable that a profit should be made?

Mr. Amory: I gladly accept the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend.

Sir W. Darling: Will these arrangements take into account the Glasgow Exhibition being run by the Scottish Council for Development in Industry and not prejudice this activity?

Mr. Amory: Yes, we are well aware of the Glasgow Exhibition and wish it every possible success.

Mr. K. Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the interests of smaller manufacturers are properly looked after by having as a representative on this governing body a nominee of the National Union of Manufacturers to represent smaller manufacturers?

Mr. Amory: That matter will be taken into consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE ACTS

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a committee to inquire into the operation of

the National Service Acts; and whether he will indicate the nature of the committee and the terms of reference.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir; it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to keep the working and balance of the National Service Acts under constant review in the light of changing circumstances. They could not cast this task upon any committee of inquiry. The second part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Prime Minister aware that despite several Departmental inquiries—at any rate so we have been informed—there still remains substantial criticism of the working of the National Service Acts in the Press, in this House and elsewhere? In those circumstances, would it not reassure the public and instil confidence about the working of the Acts if such an inquiry were held? Can the right hon. Gentleman account for the statements which appeared in nearly all newspapers last Friday morning to the effect that the Government intended to hold an inquiry, a statement which appeared to emanate from official sources?

The Prime Minister: I have not had the opportunity to study the statements to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but I am quite sure that they would not in any way alter the general effect of the answer which I have given.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Would my right hon. Friend consider pointing out to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) that perhaps this House is the appropriate committee of inquiry and that arrangements might be made through the appropriate channels to carry out such an inquiry?

The Prime Minister: If my memory serves me well, we had a debate on this subject only the other day.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many on this side of the House would welcome the suggestion made by his hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt)?

Mr. Bellenger: In relation to his first reply, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he recollects in his time the Esher Committee being set up, which caused considerable changes to be brought about in the organisation of the War Office?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Bellenger: Does the right hon. Gentleman follow the implication of that? In his first answer the right hon. Gentleman said it was sufficient for Her Majesty's Government to watch this affair and that they did not want any committee. I am giving the right hon. Gentleman this illustration. What does he say about it?

The Prime Minister: This is a really vital matter occupying all our thoughts. I think that it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government, in all branches as far as they are concerned, to study this matter with attention and form an opinion from month to month.

Mr. Wigg: Is the Prime Minister aware that today, for the first time, the Under-secretary of State for Air has informed us that of the 100,000 Royal Air Force reservists only 8,000 have done any training in 1953? Is he aware of the fact that over 90,000 young men are escaping liability whilst the Army are called upon to fulfil theirs and that this is a matter which calls for urgent inquiry?

The Prime Minister: That only shows how important it is for the Government to give constant attention to this matter.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the Prime Minister's statement that this matter will be reviewed by the Government from month to month mean that we can put down Questions every month to ascertain the views of the right hon. Gentleman?

The Prime Minister: I should never attempt to inflict upon the right hon. Gentleman such limitations upon his curiosity.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

United Steel Debentures and Preference Shares (Control)

Mr. Mulley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what voting rights or other means of control will remain with the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency in respect of the debenture stock and preference shares which will remain in the hands of the Agency after the sale of the ordinary shares of the United Steel Companies Limited.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): The holders of the company's preference

shares have no voting rights or other control and never have had, unless the dividend on preference shares is three months in arrear or a meeting has under consideration a resolution for winding up the company or adversely affecting these shareholders in certain other respects. In such a case they would have voting rights. The holders of the debenture stock exercise no control except on the occurrence of events which give them legal rights to protect their position.

Mr. Mulley: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that more than half the capital of this company remains in public hands and yet no control whatever is retained by the Treasury to look after public money thus invested? Will he say whether it is the policy of the Government to finance private industry with public money without taking precautions to safeguard the taxpayer's interests?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The holders of prior charges have exactly the same rights under the structure of the company as they always had. As to the second part of the supplementary question, the hon. Member will have noticed in the statement handed out by the Agency in October that it was intended to dispose of these shares in due course.

Soviet Debt

Mr. Keenan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the debt owing to Great Britain by the Soviet Government at the end of 1939, 1945, 1950 and 1952. respectively.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. Maudling): Including substantial private claims, approximately £1,100 million, on all four dates. Most of this indebtedness arose before 1917 and is not recognised by the Soviet Government.

Mr. Keenan: Does the existence of this debt interfere with or prevent trading arrangements with the Soviet Government?

Mr. Maudling: I do not think that the existence of this debt in any way impedes trading relations with the Soviet Government.

BILLS PRESENTED

MINES AND QUARRIES BILL

"to make fresh provision with respect to the management and control of mines and quarries and for securing the safety, health and welfare of persons employed thereat; to regulate the employment thereat of women and young persons; to require the fencing of abandoned and disused mines and of quarries; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd; supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Crookshank, Sir Walter Monckton, Major Lloyd George, the Attorney-General and Mr. Joynson-Hicks; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 38.]

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

"to amend section four of the Statute of Frauds, 1677; to repeal section four of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893;to provide that persons charged otherwise than by summons with a criminal offence shall be given a written statement of the charge; and to amend the Legitimacy Act, 1926,"presented by Mr. Arthur Skeffington; supported by Mr. Mellish, Mr. Janner, Mr. Mitchison and Mr. Sorensen; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 12th February, and to be printed. [Bill 24.]

SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (TRANSITIONAL POWERS)

3.40 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under section eight of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act. 1945, praying that the said Act, which would otherwise expire on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-three, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-four.
This Motion is not only the first but the most important of a series of five which we shall consider today, the last two of which stand in the name of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply. These five Motions follow the lines of similar Motions approved by the House a year ago. The precise effect of the later Motions can be explained when we come to them but it will, I think, be for the convenience of the House if cur general discussion of the principles of this matter takes place on the first Motion.
This is the more appropriate since, as will be apparent from paragraph 7 of the White Paper on the Continuance of Emergency Legislation, it is the first Motion which covers the greater part of those Defence Regulations which it is proposed should be extended for a further year.

Mr. Ede: I agree with the general line which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is taking, but I would ask that it should be clear that, as last year, in discussing the first Motion we may allude in a general way to what is covered by the other four Motions and, as it were, have a Second Reading debate on the whole issue. Thus I think we should save a considerable amount of time and possibly prevent some confusion.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I entirely agree.

Mr. Speaker: If it would expedite progress and be for the convenience of the House I should have no objection to hon. Members in discussing this Motion referring to such ancillary and connected matters in the other Motions as may be appropriate to their argument.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: At the outset I should like to explain one point about our procedure which is apt to cause confusion. Defence Regulations have been continued since the war under two separate procedures. On the one hand, there is the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, and on the other the Emergency Laws Acts of 1946 and 1947.
Different substantive Regulations have been continued under each of these procedures, but many of the supplementary provisions in Part V of the Regulations have necessarily had to be continued for both purposes, so that, although Regulations from Defence Regulation 82 onwards appear in the Schedule to the next Motion for Emergency Laws Acts purposes, their continuance for Supplies and Services purposes will be effected as a result of the Motion now before the House, which covers all those Regulations listed in paragraph 7 of the White Paper. In fact, the supplementary provisions of Part V of the Defence (General) Regulations enjoy a double existence, if not a double life.
I should like to say a few words about the general principles of our approach. The House is asked today to approve Motions which appear forbidding and complicated. For this I must ask the indulgence of the House, and content myself with a reminder that the drafting is dictated by the form of the enactments by which the continuance of emergency legislation was effected in the years immediately after the end of the war. The essential problem which the House has to consider and with which my colleagues and I have had to wrestle in 1953 can be reduced to simple terms, and our approach to it has been far from complicated.
We dislike those emergency powers. We believe, as we said in 1951 in "Britain Strong and Free," that no Government should have powers greater than those required for the immediate business in hand, and that the war-time emergency legislation must be thoroughly overhauled. In this belief we have carried out during 1953 a most comprehensive and searching review of the whole field, in order that we might be in a position today to lay before Parliament a coherent plan in relation to such powers as we must now ask to be continued.
In making this review, one of the most important objectives was to abandon

altogether such of the surviving emergency powers as could be dispensed with. For this purpose the principles adopted included the following:first, that administrative convenience alone was not a sufficient ground for keeping any Regulation or part of a Regulation, but that retention of a provision could be considered only if it could be demonstrated positively that its continuance was necessary in the public interest; secondly, that the retention of powers which might be necessary or useful in a future national emergency, but were now in abeyance, could no longer be justified; and thirdly, that in the circumstances of 1953 a less comprehensive range of control and enforcement was appropriate.
The other main object of the 1953 review has been to identify such of the remaining powers as seemed to serve an important continuing—I repeat the word "continuing"—public purpose and in suitable cases to put in hand the preparation of legislation. As a result, several Bills dealing with aspects of emergency legislation will come before the House in the current Session, and we have plans which will enable further Bills to be brought forward in later Sessions.
As in so many subjects, I do not think that the principles of our approach will raise much controversy, but I now have to face the point as to how far these principles have been successfully put into practice. For the purposes of our debate and those who are interested in it, the White Paper which I have mentioned and the 20th Edition of the Defence Regulations are the key documents. The Defence Regulations were re-edited and issued at the beginning of the year. The edition in the red cover, and may I assure right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that there is no political significance in the colour—

Mr. Ede: I noticed that Lord Beaverbrook called it roan, not red.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Let us by all means have every helpful comment that we can. The 20th Edition contains all the Regulations to which there may be need to make reference today.
I am glad to be able to say that since the 20th Edition was published there has been enacted the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous' Provisions) Act, 1953, and there have been no fewer than 14 Orders in


Council revoking Defence Regulations in whole or in part. The House will gain a quick impression of the extent of the inroad made into the surviving Regulations during 1953, under the combined effect of the Act, the Orders in Council and of decisions not to renew certain provisions this December, by looking at the table on page 4 of the White Paper.
I am aware that a statistical yardstick is somewhat crude and unsatisfactory, but I invite the House at this stage to take note of the total effect of the work that has gone on throughout the year. Seventy-six Regulations have, or will have been, eliminated during 1953, and a further 17 partially revoked. The full details of the latter will be found in paragraph 5 and the Appendix of the White Paper respectively.
Well over half of the legacy of emergency Regulations which the Government inherited on coming into office has been disposed of. If we had done nothing else in 1953—I shall explain in a moment that we have done a great deal more—this drastic pruning of the surviving emergency legislation alone would justify us in asking the House to approve the action taken by the Government to deal with this problem.
At this time last year the House was understandably critical of the progress achieved in 1952—I make no complaint about that—but this year the House will, I believe, be better pleased; and not the least part of that pleasure may justifiably consist of knowing that the vigorous spur applied last year has not been without its effect on Departments.
I do not intend to consume time today by any detailed retrospect. The figures speak for themselves. Perhaps I should mention, however, a few of the more significant revocations. These include the special penalty paragraphs from Defence Regulation 55 and other related Regulations. These provisions were expressed in terms of severity appropriate to dealing with black market offences in time of war and its immediate aftermath. They prescribed minimum and maximum monetary penalties much exceeding those normally available to magistrates' courts, and could be coupled with imprisonment up to one year. I have a great objection in theory and in practice to minimum sentences of any kind. I think that they restrict the discretion which any judicial

authority, be it judge or magistrate, should have; and I felt that was wrong. On conviction on indictment even heavier penalties could be imposed.
There is one point which I must make clear in connection with this revocation. The Government do not have it in mind that such economic controls as the situation demands should be continued for some further period should be less vigorously enforced. For this purpose of vigorous enforcement, we believe that the penalties in Section 92 are sufficient because, as the House will appreciate, if I maybe legalistic—I hope it will be one of the rare occasions in this speech—serious offences can be tried on indictment, and on indictment there is a penalty for every individual concerned of up to two years' imprisonment or a £500 fine, or both. In the case of a company—and in this matter of offences the more serious ones are very likely to be committed by companies—there is provision for a fine without limit; a company can be fined any amount. I do not think that we have denuded ourselves of powers to the extent of leaving it difficult to enforce whatever controls are left.
The next point on which I should like to inform the House is that there has been a careful examination of the whole of Part V of the Regulations, which is the part comprising general and supplementary provisions concerned with enforcement. We have revoked the power to use force to enter premises for the purpose of exercising powers under the Regulations in Defence Regulation 89, and we have done away with the special provision in Defence Regulation 90 for dealing with attempts to commit, or conspiracies to commit, offences against the Regulations. That revocation is, of course, without prejudice to the general law on attempts and conspiracies.
We have also revoked paragraph (2) of Defence Regulation 93, and this has the effect of restoring, in regard to offences against the Regulations still in force, the general requirement that summary proceedings must be started within six months of the date of the commission of an offence; that is, an extra six months has been done away with. I think that everyone will bear me out that all these points were felt and raised in all parts of the House when we were discussing the Regulations last year. I have tried, in


regard to enforcement, to meet the feeling which I thought was shared by the whole House when we discussed these Regulations a year ago.
I should also like to mention the revocation of the whole of Defence Regulation 58A, which deals with the direction of labour, except for paragraph (4), which provides the authority for the Notification of Vacancies Order. An undertaking was given by our predecessors that the powers of directing labour would not be used save in the event of a national emergency. We have decided to go further. We regard it as pointless to retain a power which, if it should ever be needed in future, will necessarily form part of a much more extensive range of powers required by the Government for a wide variety of purposes in face of a threat to our national existence.
May I just explain for the benefit of any of those who may be in doubt on the subject that when we do away with every part of Regulation 58A, apart from paragraph (4), which is necessary for the Notification of Vacancies Order, it cannot be put into force without legislation? The Defence Regulation cannot be re-made and the direction of labour be recreated without fresh legislation being passed which will empower that to be done. I think that is an important background to the matter to those who are considering it. The same applies, of course, to all our revocations.
Finally—and the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will, I hope, be a little pleased at this because it has been a quarry of his hunting for quite a considerable time—there is Defence Regulation 16. That Regulation dealt with the stopping up or diversion of highways for the purposes of opencast coal, and it has provoked a good deal of comment on previous occasions.
No one would deny the necessity, on economic grounds, for opencast coalmining to continue for some further period of time, however much controversy and however strong controversy there might be, irrespective of party or anything else, as to where the opencast coalmining is to go on. That raises quite a different matter on which every constituency has a different point of view. But on the continuance of open-

cast coal mining there would, I think, be general agreement as to the need.
The power in Defence Regulation 16, however, was expressed in altogether too wide a form for the purposes for which it was needed. It was the solitary remaining provision in that part of the Regulations which dealt with the security of the State. We felt that the correct way to deal with this anomaly was to make an amendment of Defence Regulation 51A in more restricted terms—I repeat "more restricted terms"—and to get rid of Defence Regulation 16 altogether. This has been done and, as will be seen from the last entry in the Appendix to the White Paper, certain words have been added to paragraph (1) of Defence Regulation 51 A, which gives power, for the purposes of the working of minerals, to provide for the temporary stopping up of any highway other than a trunk or other classified road. This power is much narrower than the one in Defence Regulation 16.
I now turn to our proposals for 1954—

Mr. Malcolm McCorquodale: Before my right hon. and learned Friend leaves that point, may I say that I do not quite understand his reference to Regulation 58A. In the White Paper, it is stated that Regulation 58A is being retained, but I now understand my right hon. and learned Friend to say that it has been cancelled.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I thought I said it clearly, and I am sorry if I have not done so. May I pause for a moment to deal with the point? I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) has a copy of the Regulations in front of him, but if by any chance he has and he will turn to Regulation 58A, which is at the bottom of page 41, and if I might do it partly by demonstration, my right hon. Friend will see that there is part of the Regulation at the foot of page 41. All that has gone, the whole of page 42 has gone, with the exception of paragraph 4,and the whole of the rest of the Regulation, which is at the top of page 43, has gone, so that Defence Regulation 58A now consists only of the following words:
The Minister may by order make provision for regulating the engagement of workers by


employers…and may, in particular, provide by any such order—
(d) for any incidental and supplementary matters for which the Minister thinks it is expedient to provide.
That is why I say that it is now limited to providing the basis for the Notification of Vacancies Order, which is still in use, and, of course, for matters severely limited by these words; it is no longer authority for the main purpose of the Regulation itself—the direction of labour. That has gone and cannot be replaced. I wonder whether I have made myself clear.

Mr. McCorquodale: I note what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, but I cannot see it in this document before us. The White Paper says that Regulation 58A is to be retained for another year, and I see nothing in the Motion before the House to say that it is not.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sorry, and I know it is a complicated matter, but I did try, in view of all the points raised last year, to make the amendment perfectly clear, and I referred earlier in my speech to paragraph 5 and the Appendix. If my right hon. Friend will look at the Appendix, he will find that it is dealt with in the partial revocation of Regulation 58A and it keeps the paragraph which I have just pointed out.

Mr. McCorquodale: I am sorry for keeping my right hon. and learned Friend; I admit my mistake.

Mr. Ralph Assheton: May I put this point to my right hon. and learned Friend, in order to get it clear, at any rate for myself? Is it the case that direction of labour could not be reintroduced without another Act of Parliament being passed?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Yes; I have said so, and I say it again. It cannot be introduced, because in form these things which we are considering today are Regulations in continuance, and once we revoke the Regulation there is nothing to continue. There is only the small power, which is severely limited, of variation, and I hope my right hon. Friend will take it from me—as I was a lawyer once—that that would not cover the question of re-enacting the Regulation.

Mr. James Hudson: I understand that paragraph 4 in Defence Regulation 58A on page 42 will be retained, and that all the rest is to go. I rather feel that paragraph 4 is still doing everything which the other parts of the Regulation, which are to disappear, formerly did, and I wonder if the right hon. and learned Gentleman can give us some specific instance of the type of power now intended to be used when the Minister—
…may by order make provision for regulating the engagement of workers by employers.
May I ask him what is really in the Government's mind concerning that paragraph?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It is limited. At the moment we have an order made under paragraph 4—the Notification of Vacancies Order—so that employers can be made to notify vacancies—for example, in the export trades—so that it will be clear to everyone who desires to move to them that these vacancies are available. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the terms of paragraph 4, he will see that that is a matter of regulation, and, again, without going into details of the argument, the use of a Regulation is entirely different from the question of directing labour, and, of course, the difference is more evident and clear, because the rest of the Regulation deals with direction and this deals with the subsidiary power.
I am most grateful to hon. Members who have asked questions, and I think that part of my job, if I may so put it, is to make sure that the House is as clear on these matters as I can make it. I have no feeling about being interrupted; the only trouble is that it is taking up other hon. Members' time.
I want to go on to deal with the proposals for 1954, and I want to assure the House that to settle a programme for 1954 has been at least as much in our minds in recent months as the simple revocation of Regulations. Part of the task has been to identify those parts of the surviving Regulations which required to be replaced by permanent powers before revocation and were capable of being dealt with in the current Session.
The second point we have had to determine, as far as we could, is the fixing of


dates for the revocation of useful Regulations serving a temporary purpose. Again, if I may just paraphrase that for a moment, the first point is replacing Regulations which have some permanent value by legislation, and the second is whether we get the right date for stopping a useful temporary Regulation. That was as I saw the problem in front of me.
As regards legislation, to deal with that first, the House passed the Bill which became the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1953, during the Session just completed. If I may use the term, that was a rag-bag Bill, an unattractive type of legislation, and I hope the last of its kind. For the future, it is necessary to proceed subject by subject in self-contained Measures. This will be an advantage from the point of view of the House, but I must point out that there is a corresponding disadvantage from the point of view of clearing up the emergency legislation. It may slow down the rate of progress.
When there is a crowded legislative programme, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has obvious difficulty in fitting in Bills which, although they may be useful and desirable, cannot be shown to be urgent and essential. Nevertheless, the current Session's programme includes at least seven Bills which will contribute to the process, and I hope the House will feel that this constitutes a notable start.
First, there is a Currency and Banknotes Bill, which will revoke two of the Defence (Finance) Regulations, and that has already been introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When the Housing Repairs and Rent Bill is passed, Defence Regulations 68A and 68AA, dealing with reconditioning of housing, will be revoked, and by Clause 36 of the Bill the way will be paved for Defence Regulation 68CB to disappear, while the corresponding Scottish Bill provides for the revocation of Defence Regulations 68B and 68BB.
Four other Measures have already been introduced in another place. These are:The Food and Drugs Amendment Bill, the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Bill, the Inventions and Design (Crown Use) Bill, and the Licensing (Seamen's Canteens) Bill. I am not without hope that at least

one further Measure bearing on this matter will be brought forward later in the Session. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no connection between my expressing that hope and the disappearance of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House from the Chamber.
When the Bills to which I have referred become law, 19 Regulations will be revoked; and, in addition, we are planning, during 1954, to get rid of at least another 10 Regulations. The outlook for 1954 is thus, that of the 97 Regulations referred to in the last column of the table at the head of page 4 of the White Paper, 29 will probably be revoked next year, leaving 68; but of these 68 I should perhaps remind the House that at least38 constitute formal and supplementary provisions, including definitions which support substantive Regulations.
There is thus a hard core of some 30 substantive Regulations, comprising 16 Defence (General) Regulations and four of the associated codes. The two main groups are those which pivot on Defence Regulation 51 (Taking possession of land) and Defence Regulation 55 (General control of industry), and they raise difficult questions. I thought it was only right—and I hope hon. Members will not think I am imposing on them—that I should say a serious word about those two groups. I think they are of great importance for the life of the country and for our legislative position.
Defence Regulation 51 provides the legal basis for the requisitioning of land and buildings, and with it are associated Defence Regulations 50, 51A, 52 and 85 and, to some extent, 50A and 62. One must also have in mind Section 28 of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945, which is also in point. As you, Mr. Speaker, are well aware, questions of property tenure are apt to take a long time to settle, and the orderly liquidation of the emergency powers relating to land offers one of the most difficult problems with which we are faced in this field. It is clear that the powers cannot be abruptly relinquished, but what I hope the House will wish to hear from me is how the Government propose to work towards a solution of this problem. I am aware that the subject of requisitioning is sufficiently wide to justify a debate


in itself, and within the time available to me I can only touch lightly on our approach to it.
Our attack on the problem is twofold. There is, in the first place, the giving up of requisitions wherever circumstances permit in favour of methods of tenure more appropriate to peace-time conditions. Secondly, there is the need to determine how far legislation may be required on certain matters before the Regulations can be dispensed with. As regard the first of these, that is, the giving up of requisitions, all my Ministerial colleagues concerned with the exercise of requisitioning powers have given instructions in their own Departments for a drive to be made to secure by negotiation that as many properties as possible now held under Defence Regulation powers, and for which a continuing need is foreseen, should be leased or perhaps purchased instead of being held under war-time powers.
This applies equally to requisitions effected by local authorities under delegated powers, and the Departments concerned have urged the local authorities to speed up the process of relinquishment. Equity and good sense alike require the earliest practicable solution of as many cases as possible on these lines. Again, the principle is clear but its application gives rise to difficulties which must take time to solve.
I hope that it will help the House to appreciate more fully the extent of the problem and the vigour with which it is being tackled if I give a few figures. When this Government took office in October, 1951, a total of3,358 buildings, in addition to sites, were held on requisition by Government Departments. This figure excludes houses and flats held by the Housing Departments, to which I will refer in a moment. In the two years since then, that number has been reduced by 35 per cent. to 2,174.
This total, which I agree is still large, includes 3 million square feet of office space and 24 million square feet of other accommodation held by the Ministry of Works for such purposes as storage, hostels and slaughter houses. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Works is planning to lease, purchase or give up by the end of 1954 at least half of the 1,700 properties for which he is responsible.

The rate of progress is necessarily affected by current restrictions on finance and building resources that can be made available to provide alternative accommodation.
Now I turn to the War Office, which has extensive holdings of requisitioned land for training and other purposes; their holding under requisition is now reduced to some 80,000 acres as compared with a peak figure of 700,000 acres. Of this, 58,000 acres are used for training. The bulk of that will have to be acquired permanently, and negotiations are proceeding. The balance of 22,000 acres is mainly connected with buildings held on requisition. Of these, the War Office held about 1,000 sites a year ago. Over the last year there has been a reduction of some 200 sites, a further 200 are in process of being returned to their owners and about the same number are being purchased or leased. That leaves 400 where the position is under examination at the moment.
The Ministry of Supply was responsible at the end of the war for about 7,000 requisitions. These have now been reduced to 265, covering 102 sites. In 190 of these cases out of the 265 negotiations for a permanent settlement are taking place. The General Post Office expect to clear up 69 requisitions in the next two years out of 103 now held. The fact is that a great many requisitions are being given up and everyone concerned is aware of the Government's determination to press on towards a solution; but I am the first to admit that we have still a long way to go.
That brings me to the question of legislation about land. If I may put it this way, it is clear that Parliament will have to play a part in the solution of our problems. I give as an example the problem of large-scale military exercises, which can at present be carried out in this country by virtue of Defence Regulation 52, the last occasion being the autumn of 1951.
This is an example, Mr. Speaker, of the indulgence which you were good enough to approve. The Regulation is continued under the procedure covered by the next Motion. In view of the Amendment on the Order Paper, we shall be having a specific discussion upon it, but it would be for the convenience of the House if at this stage I explained


how we are planning to provide for its eventual replacement.
The only powers available other than Defence Regulation 52 are those contained in the Manoeuvres Acts of 1897and 1911, which may not be adequate for modern needs, and the question therefore arises as to how far these Acts will need to be amended or replaced by new provisions before Defence Regulation 52 can be dispensed with. The scope of a Bill on this subject is now being studied, and I hope that by the time the renewal of emergency legislation is again before the House we shall be in a position to make proposals as to what should be done.
There are other aspects of land use and acquisition which will also require to be dealt with in legislation. It is, for example, the curious position, of which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields is aware, that under the law as it stands at present, local authorities have more effective powers for the compulsory purchase of land than the Government themselves. Permanent powers, with appropriate safeguards, will be required by the Ministry of Works and the General Post Office.
Then there is the problem, to which I referred in another connection, of opencast coalmining by the National Coal Board under the authority of the Ministry of Fuel and Power. There are also other matters, such as the cultivation of common land, which require to be dealt with by legislation.
I think I have said enough to indicate that the matters to be dealt with in any Bill or Bills of this kind will call for critical examination by the House when they are presented. I am sure the House will agree that the nature of the subject equally demands that time and care should be expended at the drafting stage and that legislation in this Session would not be practicable. This is a question not of perpetuating Defence Regulation powers but of defining in a form acceptable under peace-time conditions the proper permanent powers, with safeguards for existing owners and occupiers, to be exercisable by Government Departments.
I do not know in what form or at what time it will be possible to bring forward Bills for the purposes that I have indicated, but what I have to tell the House

now is that the necessary preparatory inquiries have been set on foot and that they will be pursued with vigour. We recognise that the position cannot be allowed to drift and that it will be necessary before very long to set a terminal date by which requisitions under the wartime powers must be liquidated.
There is another matter which I mentioned and on which I must say a word, for the House will expect it, and that is the 75,000 requisitioned houses which are used to provide homes for inadequately housed families. That is more than 20,000 fewer than the number of houses held at the peak of requisitioning in 1948. Since this Government took office, the rate of release has steadily increased, and in the last quarter 1,900 houses were derequisitioned, although no one thinks that this rate is fast enough. This is a difficult and complex problem, for there are 125,000 families living in the 75,000 houses, and it is no easy matter to find a solution which will be fair as between the owners of the properties and the present occupiers and also as between the Government and the local authorities.

Mr. Percy Shurmer: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the derequisitioning of houses is having an adverse effect in the large cities, where houses perhaps have been converted into flats or, at all events, two families, and in some cases three families, may be living in a house? The local authorities are derequisitioning the houses at the request of the Minister. The owner of the house may not want it for his own occupation, and he is selling out and cashing in. Yet at the same time the local authority has to provide accommodation for those people from the new houses, to the disadvantage of applicants who may have been living in lodging for many years. This is bad.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That just illustrates that this is a problem—

Mr. Shurmer: It certainly is a problem.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: —which is tripartite or quadripartite. We have to look at the families that I have mentioned and at the people who own the property, who may or may not be well off; we have to look at the local authorities who have their housing problem, and we have also to look at the Government's overriding


responsibility. That is why my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government recently sent a circular to local authorities covering the Second Interim Report of the Working Party and explaining that the Government are considering this matter.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Sparkbrook(Mr. Shurmer) will be the first to agree that this is a matter on which there must be consultations with local authorities before the Government make proposals. But my right hon. Friend, whose activities in the field of housing must have convinced the House of his capacity to offer constructive solutions to baffling problems such as this one, has recognised the urgency of the matter and has it in hand, and these consultations will go on.
I did not want the House to say that this subject was omitted. I wanted to give a general picture because I know how concerned hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House are about the subject. I have tried to give the position with regard to requisitioning under the group of Regulations which pivot on Defence Regulation 51.
I want now to say a word about the other main group of Regulations, which centre round Defence Regulation 55, which makes provision for the general control of industry, and Defence Regulation 55AB, which deals with price control of goods and services. This group includes Defence Regulations 55AA, 56A and 58A, with which I have already dealt. When the Government came into office, we took over a legacy of a tightly-controlled economy. We have made it our business over the last two years to give practical effect to the pledge that we made to the electorate in 1951 that:
…controls should not exceed in number or in range the demands of the present crisis. They should hamper initiative as little as possible, and be reduced as quickly as possible.
I am well aware that economic policy is a field into which Home Secretaries venture at their peril, and the House will not expect me to expound in any detail matters which are best left to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Ministers in charge of Departments concerned with economic matters. But it is common knowledge that each of my colleagues in his own sphere of Departmental responsibility has

applied himself to carry out the policy which we were elected to put into effect and that, as a result, over the last two years systematic progress has been made with the work of freeing the national economy to enable the native genius of our people to play its full and proper part in national recovery and prosperity. However, I do not think it is appreciated that in recent months economic controls have been abolished at a quite unprecedented rate, and I should like to give a few figures.
When the Government took office, there were not fewer than 277 separate economic control Orders in operation resting on the sanction of Defence Regulation 55. The range covered by these controls was extensive. They comprised the basic controls with which everyone is familiar—food rationing, fuel distribution, strategic goods, aluminium, sulphur, timber and other raw materials. But they also extended to less obvious territory, such as bananas—I have no personal feeling in referring to that one—bristles, fertilisers, true hemp, knotted netting, organs and pianos, cast-iron baths, unwrought zinc, flax seed, colliery arches and lawn mowers.
By 1st November of this year, no fewer than 178 out of the 277 control Orders had been got rid of, while 31 of those remaining continue in a substantially modified form compared with two years ago. The Board of Trade was responsible for 108 of the Orders. In two years that number has been reduced to 14. That figure has since been temporarily increased by four as a result of the recent decision of the House in connection with the Miscellaneous Controls (Revocation) Order.
Of the 99 Orders under Defence Regulation 55 in force today, half are concerned with controls of foodstuffs which are being rapidly eliminated. Some of the remaining Ministry of Food Orders are, however, required to carry out the guarantees given to farmers under the Agriculture Act, 1947, until more permanent marketing arrangements have been made.
I think I may fairly claim that the Government have fully lived up to their declared aims in the economic field in this respect. This has been done, I should remind the House, not in any irresponsible mood of discarding controls


for doctrinaire reasons, but as part of a systematic policy for the restoration of the economic health of the nation, and we claim that that is being justified today by the quickening impulse of normal trading conditions.
My part, as Home Secretary, in the process of relinquishing controls is limited, but there is one aspect of it on which I should touch. The enforcement of an extensive system of economic controls could not fail to produce a large crop of prosecutions and convictions, and large-scale interference with the activities of the people going about their daily business inevitably tended to bring before the criminal courts many otherwise law-abiding citizens.
In the years immediately after the war, convictions for offences against Defence Regulations in England and Wales were running at a monthly rate of close on 1,700, the vast bulk of them being rationing and similar offences against controls. I think it is right to say that anyone concerned with securing proper respect for the law could not fail to view convictions on this scale with concern.
I do not seek to make this a party point, for our predecessors were equally aware of it, and by 1951 the monthly average had dropped from 1,700 to 504. In the first nine months of this year, I am happy to say, it has come down still further to 220, and in the third quarter of 1953, which is the latest period for which figures are available, the monthly rate is 132. As the remaining controls are dispensed with, we may look for a further welcome decline. This is an incidental, but in my view by no means an unimportant, by-product of the general policy which we are carrying out.
About the other miscellaneous powers not falling into the two main groups of which I have spoken, I would only say that an adequate case has been made out for each of the Departments concerned and that that case has been accepted by Ministers only after careful study. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is to reply to this debate, will be happy to give information as to the reasons for keeping any individual Regulation that I have not mentioned.
I am sorry to have taken up so much of the time of the House, but I have

tried, as briefly as possible, to survey what we have done in 1953 and how we intend to go on in 1954. We recognise that the overhaul and examination of emergency legislation is a continuing process. The results achieved in 1953 are considerable, but much remains to be done. We aim to press on with this task, and I accordingly invite the House to approve this Motion, and, in approving it, to recognise that the achievement of 1953 gives warrant for thinking that 1954 will be productive of not less acceptable results.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I am quite sure that the whole House would desire me to express to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department our thanks for the care and lucidity with which he has explained the various proposals that are being put before us this afternoon by Her Majesty's Government, and if we do not share some of his enthusiasm for some of his less creditable exploits, his, after all, is only the common lot of Home Secretaries who have to move these Motions.
However, I am particularly grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his recognition of the good work that we did last year by the very prolonged consideration which we gave to these matters, although it was held against us by the Leader of the House when he was trying to find excuses for guillotining the Transport Bill. After all, even if the recognition has been long delayed, it is none the less well deserved and heartily welcomed.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has given us a very full and detailed account, not merely of what the Government are proposing to do, but of their reasons for doing these things. There are one or two comments that I should like to make, in a purely general way, on the various issues raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Personally, I am inclined to agree with him in his general objection to minimum sentences, because I am quite sure that, even in what are now quite ordinary matters of the law, their necessary infliction following upon conviction leads to juries being very hesitant to find people guilty even in what I regard as a comparatively serious offence, that of driving under the influence of drink.
The fact that conviction in such an offence is followed automatically and compulsorily by a year's suspension of the licence makes some juries, on which too many motorists are present, rather hesitant about finding a fellow motorist guilty if there is any possible way of doing the other thing. Even the question of driving without a third party insurance, which carries a similar penalty, is sometimes also lightly regarded by justices in petty sessions because of the inevitable penalty they will have to impose if they find the man guilty.
There is, therefore, a very strong and compelling case for avoiding minimum penalties being inserted in the legislation, or the Regulations, unless they are absolutely necessary. But I am not quite certain that we have reached a stage, in this particular field, where the Government have been altogether wise in rejecting the minimum penalty imposed for some offences that do cover a very considerable area of offence. I should like if I may be permitted to correct the right hon. and learned Gentleman on one matter. I am told that the Section 92 to which he referred, and on which he is to rely in the future, should read Defence Regulation 92.
I took advantage of the erudition of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), by getting him to go through the White Paper, compare it with this book, and to cross out in red ink all the things that have been repealed or amended in the White Paper, so I was rather better informed on this question of 58A than was my own right hon. Member—the Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale). It is a matter of regret to me that, at this early stage today, I am not reinforced by the presence of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch, but I have no doubt that, if the debate follows the same course as it did last year, he will come up with the reserves, thoroughly fresh when the others are exhausted. But it would be wrong of me not to pay tribute to the amount of work he did to ensure that, as far as possible, I should not fall into error, either of omission or commission, in dealing with the Government's proposals.
I welcome the disappearance of Defence Regulation 16. I was always under grave suspicion by many of my colleagues

that I was not, myself, very vigorously enforcing this Defence Regulation, or viewing with great favour applications under it. I am very glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been able to find a way by which all that is practically required can be achieved by his Amendment of another Order and so restrict the wider use that was always possible while Defence Regulation 16 remained.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not allude to a matter which formed no small part of his case last year, which was that a Select Committee would be appointed to consider the way in which the House could control delegated legislation. That Select Committee was appointed. I had the honour to serve on it with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) and other of my hon. Friends and hon. Members on the other side of the House, under the chairmanship of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies).
We met throughout the whole period of last Session; I think we met practically every week that the House was sitting, and, towards the end of the Session, met even more frequently. We completed the report, which was formally presented to the House just at the close of last Session, but that report has not yet been printed and circulated to hon. Members, and, therefore, it would be out of order for me to make any allusion to what it may contain.
I can, I think, at least say that we were almost unanimous in our report and that there are certain recommendations, with regard to the procedure of the House in dealing with those matters, which we have made in a co-operative spirit. I can only hope, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends and colleagues who served on the Committee that, when the report is available, the Government will give very serious consideration to so amending the Standing Orders and procedure of the House as to enable the recommendations to be carried out.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: If I may intervene for a moment. I did not refer to the report for the reason that my right hon. Friend has noted, that is, that it is not yet before the House but, as he has been good enough to refer to it I should like, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government and, I am sure, on behalf of the whole House, to express our gratitude for all the work that has been put into this matter by the Committee.

Mr. Ede: In the absence of the Chairman it is hardly for me to express anything other than thanks for what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said. May I hope that, as far as the Government are concerned, it will go beyond gratitude, and that they will profit by the recommendations that we have made.
The Home Secretary then dealt with the legislative proposals of the Government for dealing with those Regulations which they now think ought to be embodied in permanent legislation, that is to say, by a Regulation which, even in the circumstances of today, does embody something that ought to be preserved in the general law of the country and, possibly with some modification of the terms that were used in the Regulation, continued in force and embodied in the statutes. I agree with him that those of us who served with him on the Committee that dealt with the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1953, would not view with very great favour continuing to deal with the matter in what he, I think quite rightly, described as a "rag bag" Bill.
It is far better that these matters should be embodied in the law in Acts that can be quite easily identifiable as dealing with a particular subject, because sometimes the fact that a matter has been dealt with more or less comprehensively in one of these Miscellaneous Provisions Bills does escape the notice even of lawyers, of people who used to be lawyers, and those who try to get justice without incurring the expense of lawyers.
Therefore, I welcome the arrangement by which he intends, as I understand in this Session and possibly in next Session, to take certain other of the Regulations that it is desired to preserve more or less intact, and to put them into Bills that will be really Departmental Bills, and

easily identifiable as being part of the legislation dealing with a specific subject.
I notice that there are several of the provisions now in the Regulations that are more or less covered by Clauses of the Bill introduced by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, dealing with housing repairs and rents. We shall, of course, examine those Clauses, when we get to them, with the utmost care, to make quite sure that the defences that those Regulations have set round some of the humblest homes of the country are fully preserved, and that, in putting them into permanent legislation, there is no whittling away of provisions that were made under the Defence Regulations.
The other Bills in which this matter is being dealt with this year are, I think, rather less controversial than the Housing Bill is likely to be. There again, however, most of them have started in another place, and when they reach us here we shall give them the same kind of attention, in order to make quite certain that what has been gained is not lost in the process of putting them into permanent legislative form.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave us a very detailed account, for which I thank him, of what the Government are doing in the way of requisitioning land and houses. I think the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer) was an indication of the great difficulty that will surround the de-requisitioning of those properties which have been taken for definite housing purposes, and it will need the very greatest possible care to ensure that the balance of justice, which is always so difficult to attain in these matters, is preserved.
One knows within one's own personal experience of persons whose property is requisitioned and upon whom hardship is inflicted; then when one goes and sees the property and discovers who are living there, one is aware of the difficulties which will confront them if the house is de-requisitioned and they are turned out. One sees at once the great problem that must confront the Ministry and this House when they have to attempt to establish a balance between those claims. We sincerely trust that the Minister and his colleagues will be very careful in the proposals that they make and the practice that they follow when they try to


reduce still further the number of these requisitioned houses.
Generally, I think we should agree that it is advisable that where the property is permanently required by the Government, as soon as the Department makes up its mind that it will require this property, no matter which Department it may be, it should proceed towards arranging what the right hon. and learned Gentleman somewhat magniloquently described as a more acceptable form of tenure. Whether it be purchasing or leasing, it seems that to get on to a reasonably permanent basis is probably in the best interests both of the actual owner of the property and of the Government Department concerned.
That is the kind of requirement that the Treasury makes when a Government Department asks for power to spend money on adapting requisitioned property for the particular purpose for which they hold it. I am glad to see that the Treasury is so ably represented here this afternoon by the Financial Secretary, who must really be wishing that he was back on this side of the House so that he could tell us exactly what he thinks about a Government that continues any Regulations for a single second. I am sure that it would ease the work of the Departments as well as relieve the mind of the owner if these more permanent arrangements could be reached.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to two alternatives—compulsory purchase and compulsory leasing. I am sure that he appreciates that there is no power in law for compulsory leasing. It would require a fresh departure in legislation.

Mr. Ede: I hope I did not say "compulsory leasing," because I was trying to follow the form of words used by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. But I would not have it thought that, of necessity, I would rule out compulsory leasing in dealing with this matter.
I commend to the attention of his colleagues the words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in alluding to the greater powers that local authorities have for dealing with compulsory purchase, when compared with those possessed by Government Departments. I have no doubt that he has already discovered in the Home Office that in some matters

where a local authority would have no difficulty in obtaining land for a specific public purpose, the Home Office itself possesses no such powers, although it has a few more than when I first went to the Home Office. It is, however, gravely hampered occasionally in carrying out quite necessary social work because of the absence of powers that every local authority would expect to enjoy. The curious thing is that most compulsory powers exerted by local authorities have to be approved by a Government Department which itself does not possess the power that the local authority has exercised, and merely asks for confirmation from the Government Department concerned.
There is, of course, the very great difficulty to which the right hon. and learned Government alluded, which, I understand, he hopes to cover by legislation in the near future, about the land required by the War Office, particularly for military manoeuvres. I know that during the lifetime of the late Government that matter presented very considerable difficulties to us because, after all, the scale of military manoeuvres now in this country is out of all proportion to the scale when the Military Manoeuvres Act, 1897, was first passed. The methods of conveying troops have altered so much.
I assume that the first military manœuvres in which I ever took part, in the year 1900, were governed by the Military Manœuvres Act, 1897. In those days the infantry marched. It is true that the three field officers rode on horses, but the rest of us marched. That is no longer the case, as I understand. Among the many benefits conferred on the infantry in recent years, not the least of them has been that they are under less liability to march than they were in 1900.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison): They still have some liability to march.

Mr. Ede: Oh, yes, they have still got some; but the new troops are nothing like the old ones.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): They never were.

Mr. Ede: No. I am merely repeating what my regimental sergeant major said


to me and what I said to the troops when I held that position.
It is, however, a matter of very serious concern, and I have no doubt that it will be dealt with at some greater length by my right hon. and hon. Friends connected with the agricultural industry when we reach the Amendment that we have tabled dealing with this issue. The amount of damage that can be done by modern vehicles on manœuvres is considerably greater than were the depredations that the troops occasionally made at harvest time among the growing fruit on the trees in the areas in which they happened to be.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman made one remark which, I must say, caused me some alarm. I have noticed that there is growing agitation on the question of dealing, in some legislative form, with common lands. He mentioned that almost as the small dust of the balance. Great as was my dislike of Defence Regulation 16, I could view some of the proposals for dealing with common lands with even greater hostility than I regarded Defence Regulation No. 16.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman wound up with an account of what it is proposed to do with economic control. He rather hinted that it might be there that we should find more ground for disagreement than elsewhere. The right hon. and learned Gentleman set out, with some show of satisfaction, the statistics in this particular field. From his point of view I suppose that he and those who support him can regard them with some satisfaction, but hon. Members on this side of the House are by no means certain that, here, haste has not got the better of wisdom on the part of the Government.
When I read some of the rather plaintive appeals being made to industry and finance by the Chancellor of the Exchequer I am inclined to think that if some of these Regulations and Orders were still in existence his words would be received with greater respect, and more action might follow by those to whom the words are addressed.
When I was negotiating for real estate for a local authority I always found it very advantageous to have a compulsory purchase order in my pocket if I wanted

it. I have no doubt that if I had consulted the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) professionally with regard to the question whether or not I should seek powers for a compulsory purchase order, he would have said, "It is always better to take full advantage of all the powers you possess, in the hope that you will not have to use them."
We do not think that the economic circumstances of the country are so assured that the Government have been wise in dispensing so rapidly with controls that give a certain driving power to exhortations addressed to leaders of industry and finance by members of the Government who are responsible for the supervision of our economic life. I sometimes think that the Government have almost reached the laissez faire Liberalism of 100 years ago. I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) would feel quite at home now with Bright and, Cobden. Although they might be rather alarmed at finding him so eloquent and persistent a supporter, he would find nothing very difficult in accepting all the things that, between that date and this, were supposed by the Tory Party to be mere Whig heresies.
It is quite certain that there are great and powerful interests who do not at all times find it acceptable, even in our present economic plight, to accept the guidance of those whose permanent interest it is to see that our economic restoration is carried through and completed. We therefore view with very considerable doubt the rapidity with which not merely Orders but Regulations have disappeared. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, each Regulation that disappears can be given effect to in the future only by legislative Acts, and that fact is not lost sight of by those who, while the Regulation exists, realise that the Orders previously made under it can be reinforced. On this aspect of the matter we view the activities of the right hon. and learned Gentleman with less approbation; in fact, on occasion, with positive disapprobation.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also said something which I regretted hearing from a Home Secretary. I believe that any offence committed against the law of the country is an offence. I regret


that motor car offences have become so prevalent among what was formally an almost completely law-abiding section of the community, and that a conviction in a magistrates' court is now regarded as of far less importance than it used to be. I recall, when I first served on a Lord Lieutenant's advisory committee, we had a rule that no one who had been convicted in a magistrates' court could be recommended as a magistrate.
During the 25 years that I served on that committee the attitude of motor drivers changed so much that we found it very difficult to find anybody whom we could recommend from among the middle classes, for all had at one time or another appeared in the magistrates' courts and had been fined for motoring offences. We managed to find a few, but we had to abrogate that rule.
The prosecutions under Defence Regulations were undertaken because the law had been broken. The law had been made owing to the desperate plight of the country, and I regret that it should bethought that in some way or other such an offence is less reprehensible than others. We do not say, because burglaries have increased in number, that we should lighten the law and lessen the penalty with regard to burglary. I know some people who would like to see the law in this respect made even more stringent. It is one of the depressing things of our time that people seem to think that an offence committed by a lower-middle-class person is not likely to be as serious an offence as some of the more ancient ones which have been dealt with for a very long period of time.
We are indebted to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the very clear and lucid exposition he gave of what he proposes. I hope he will feel that I have dealt with the principal points raised. I have purposely not gone into too much detail on some of them because at this stage in our proceedings it is better to state our general attitude rather than to get bogged down in small details. Nevertheless, we are grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for having dealt in considerable detail with the proposal.
I do not know how long we shall continue our discussion today. Last year we gave up in despair, because, if we had continued much longer, we should

have lost a discussion of a Private Member's Bill to which we attached some importance. That might have been jeopardised if we had continued much longer with our discussion. At any rate, I think we start off in rather better temper than we did last time, and while I am not wanting to say anything that would restrict any discussion that is necessary of these matters, I trust that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will feel that, while, of necessity, we have to make reservations on a great many points, we do welcome the transition of some of these Regulations into permanent legislation.
He can rest assured that in that field, at least, he will have our support, even if given with our critical examination of his proposals. With regard to the others, and particularly with regard to the abandonment of some of his economic controls, we can only hope that he will not be there so long that the worst effects of what he now proposes will take place.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Assheton: I intervene with some hesitation in this very difficult and obscure subject I have neither the advantage of the Home Secretary's great legal knowledge, assisted by a first-rate Department of State, nor the advantage of having the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) to devil for me, which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) told us was his good fortune.
I do think that we ought to congratulate the Home Secretary first of all on the way in which he presented his case and the extremely patient way he dealt with interruptions by my hon. Friends and myself, and also on the very full account of what it is intended to do. I think we must also congratulate him on the record which he showed us of the achievement in reducing the number of Regulations under which we are governed.
I am one of those who very much dislike delegated legislation. I think we all do, although we recognise that in this 20th century we cannot altogether do without it, but I would say a little following on what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields has said about breaking laws. I agree with him that breaking laws is a very serious thing,


and I hope that it will never be that in this country laws can be broken lightly, but I would remind him and the House that we have moved a long way in the last 20 years from the old position when it was always recognised that every man was presumed to know the law. That may have been a little hard then, but that presumption today is still the law, and yet it is quite imposible for any individual to know the law.
I think that the general public do not feel the same sense of guilt about breaking some of these Regulations and Orders which are made by Ministers—some signed by Ministers, some signed only by civil servants—that they do about breaking the old-established and better-known laws of the land. I think that was a point that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields perhaps missed to some extent. It is a fact that the general public know these laws have not been debated in Parliament. They have not gone through Second Reading, Committee stage, and Third Reading in this House, and been again debated in another place.
There they are, suddenly foisted upon the community; and the community do not know very often what is in the laws. They have had no opportunity of being informed. Members of the public could, of course, buy the Defence Regulations, but no ordinary member of the public could equip himself with all the Orders made under the Defence Regulations. Believe it or not, a number of these Orders are not even printed.

Mr. Hylton-Foster: Some of them are not even numbered.

Mr. Assheton: Some of them are not even numbered, as my hon. and learned Friend tells me. How an ordinary member of the public can find his way through this maze of legislation I cannot say. So I think there is something to be said for the individual member of the public who does not feel that it is such a serious offence to break one of these laws. He is not right in thinking that; he is wrong; but I have some sympathy for him when he feels that.
My right hon. and learned Friend gave us certain assurances for which I was very grateful, and he explained certain matters of which I was ignorant. He dealt, in particular, with Regulation 58A.

I was glad to know that the reintroduction of the direction of labour cannot be effected without an Act of Parliament. That is very satisfactory, but I do not find it very satisfactory that Regulation 58A should still exist at all, since it is required for what I consider to be only a comparatively minor purpose. Although it is only for a comparatively minor purpose, the powers given to the Minister of Labour and National Service are, in my opinion, excessive.
Even now, under this Regulation the Minister may by Order make provision for regulating the engagement of workers by employers, and
…may, in particular, provide by any such order for any incidental and supplementary matters for which the Minister thinks it expedient to provide.
He can say that no one is to go into such and such a trade. That is a stringent power to have, and when we have the assurance, which Ministers have given us, that no greater powers will be kept than the existing situation demands, I ask myself whether by the test of that we ought to continue to accept Regulation 58A.
However, Regulation 58A is really just child's play compared with Regulation 55. Let me direct the attention of the House for a few minutes to Regulation 55—general control of industry. What can the Government do under that?
A competent authority"—
that, of course, means any one of a number of Ministers—
…may by order provide (a) for regulating or prohibiting the production, treatment, keeping, storage, movement, transport, distribution, disposal, acquisition, use or consumption of articles of any description; (b) for regulating the carrying on of every undertaking engaged in essential work.
Those powers are enormously wide. and they are powers which, as I understand them—I hope I am not making a mistake—my right hon. and learned Friend is asking us to continue for another year—all those tremendous powers. When the Financial Secretary to the Treasury wound up the debate on 20th November last year, he specifically said:
We give the assurance that we shall watch them carefully"—
that is, this business—
to make sure that excessive powers are neither held nor sought."—[Official Report, 20th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 2176.]
Can he or the Home Secretary really believe that those powers that I have just


enumerated are not excessive for the purposes the Government have at present in hand? My hon. Friend went on to talk last year about the difficulties of the war in Korea and so on, but even that has, happily, come to an end, or been suspended for the time being. Even if it were still going on, I could not believe that the excessive powers under Regulation 55 should be retained.
My right hon. and learned Friend told us—and we are very glad of it—that an enormous number of controls had been abolished. The have not been abolished. They have been suspended. That is all. The power to reintroduce those controls, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields has just told us, is still inherent, is still there, and Ministers can at any time reintroduce all those controls dealing with industry. That is a matter of which we must think very seriously. I do not propose for a moment to challenge the Government tonight or to suggest that what they are doing should not be proceeded with tonight, but I do beg my right hon. and learned Friend to consider before next year this whole position very seriously.
I hope and pray that he will not come to this House this time next year to ask us once again to accept the re-enactment, for example, of Regulation 55. I have used that as an illustration, because I think it is the most striking illustration I could use. It would take me a very long time to go through the other Regulations and deal with them, and I do not propose to do so, and I end with a plea from this side of the House to the Government to realise and remember that people will not be satisfied to leave such enormous powers in the hands of Ministers. We do not believe in leaving an enormous amount of power in one set of hands. The whole idea of the people of this country and of our Constitution is that power must not rest in too few hands. At the present time there is more power in the hands of Her Majesty's Government than I, at any rate, think fitting.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: I agree wholeheartedly with the observations which have just been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton). I hope it will not embarrass him if I describe

them as a healthy, Liberal approach to this problem. I found what he had to say about Defence Regulation 55 much more acceptable than what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) had to say. I found his argument in this respect very strange indeed. He talked about controls giving driving power. I would have thought that they would almost inevitably produce precisely the opposite result.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to talk about economic restoration, as if economic restoration depended in any degree on the maintenance of the Defence Regulations. I certainly much prefer the approach of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West towards economic controls and the maintenance of Regulation 55. I share his hope that during this year we will see the end to the type of controls envisaged in that Regulation.
I should like to add to the comments made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West on the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields about prosecutions and convictions under the Defence Regulations. Where there are convictions for offences which do not, in the eyes of the public, involve moral turpitude, there is being created a state of affairs which may cause general damage to the administration of justice in this country.
Undoubtedly, many convictions obtained under the Defence Regulations were not convictions which carried moral turpitude in the eyes of the public. Possibly some of them did, but some of them did not; and it may be that some which did not should have. The fact remains that a very large number of them did not carry any stigma in the eyes of decent, honourable citizens. When we find such a state of affairs it means a weakening of the respect for the administration of justice, in that the label of having been convicted for a criminal offence ceases to have anything like the stigma which it should have had and which it always had in the past.
I certainly accept the principle of the Government's approach to the use of these powers as outlined by the Home Secretary. It would be churlish of me not to pay tribute to the Government for the


substantial improvement which has been made during the last 12 months.
The point I should like to make in this respect is largely one of emphasis. The Home Secretary has referred to a number of powers which are no longer being retained by the Government, so that some powers which existed under the Defence Regulations are being taken from the Executive. There is not one which he mentioned which did not have my approval, but I would have preferred him to do away with the Defence Regulations altogether, because the continued existence of emergency legislation in this form is an affront to Parliament.
I wish the right hon. and learned Gentleman had displayed a greater sense of urgency in removing not so much the powers as contained in these Regulations—that is a different question altogether—but of altering the position whereby these powers are given to the Executive in the way in which they are held at present. It is a reflection upon the whole Parliamentary set-up that wider powers should now be held by means of these Orders in Council, which were given to the Executive to meet an emergency situation.
We are dealing now with Regulations some of which have been in force since 1940. They were given in a form under which all the House could do was either to accept or reject them. It had no power of amending them or of making any counter suggestions.
All I would say in that connection is that what is paramount from the point of view of Parliament and its relations with the Executive is that no powers should be retained except by means of Measures carried through this House in the normal way, with all the essential safeguards associated with the passing of legislation. It is convenient for the Executive to have these powers and not to have them interfered with. It is convenient from the point of view of the management of the business of this House not to have to introduce additional Bills to give the Executive a power which it already has.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I agree, in substance, with what the hon. and learned Gentleman says and I wish

that this had gone to the Delegated Legislation Committee. What we all want to know is how to deal with the 2,000 Statutory Instruments which are passed each year, and which are not subject to discussion or amendment.

Mr. Bowen: I did not have the advantage of sitting on that Committee, and I look forward to reading its Report when it is published. In this respect, however, these Defence Regulations are framed in a way which many forms of delegated legislation are not. I appreciate that if we are dealing with such matters as price control there is a necessity for elasticity to give power to the Minister to vary prices at different times, because conditions are continually changing.
However, here, in the main, the Government are asking for the retention of powers which have been given to the Executive, and are not prepared at the moment to subject the question of whether those powers should be given to the normal legislative processes of this House. All I would say is whether or not any of these powers should or should not be retained—and we can assume that some of them need to be retained—the sooner they are acquired by the Government through the ordinary processes of legislation the healthier it will be for Parliament.
It would be healthier from another point of view. If Government Departments had to justify the retention of these powers in a detailed Bill which would be subject to examination in Committee, they would find that many of the powers which they now have under these Regulations would not be necessary. Any hon. Member exercising his private rights would subject these powers to careful scrutiny. That is essential in the promotion of any Bill.
Therefore, while welcoming the progress made during 1952–53, I am disappointed that the Home Secretary envisaged coming to the House in 12 months' time to ask once more for the continuance of emergency legislation embodying 68 of these Regulations which were given in time of war. The Government should make a real effort to improve upon their programme in this respect. They should examine again very carefully whether many of these powers need to be retained—I have referred to


one already—and, having done so, should try to see that these powers are acquired by normal Parliamentary procedure and not by this means.
I should like to make one or two comments on some of the individual Regulations. I share the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) with regard to Regulation 58A. I appreciate that it is only envisaged that it will be invoked for a relatively innocuous purpose, namely, the notification of vacancies. But after all, the powers remaining, according to the words of the Regulation, are extremely wide:
The Minister may by order make provision for regulating the engagement of workers by employers.…
I think that the fact of his leaving in words of such a wide character tend to take away from the general pleasure which I felt at the abolition of any powers of direction of labour. I would feel far happier if the Home Secretary could go a little further and make it quite clear that this Defence Regulation will only be used for the powers which he mentioned, namely, the notification of vacancies.
One of the difficulties is that all these powers acquired by the Executive in this way are powers which inevitably interfere with personal liberty and personal rights. In the White Paper, the phrase is used that some of the legislation would be of a complex character. I do not for one moment deny that, but the fact that the legislation would have to be of a complex character and that the matters concerned are matters for which Parliament has a particular responsibility, make it all the more important that they should be subjected to the ordinary legislative processes.
I want to say one other thing about the powers of requisition and powers of acquisition of land, and the position of the Armed Forces in regard to requisitioning. This is an extremely difficult problem which often gives rise to a sense of injustice on the part of the public. I think that we all try to appreciate the point of view of the Services in this matter, but I also think that the time has come when any powers which Parliament thinks fit to give to the Services should not be given through

the medium by which they are given at present, but should be clearly defined and limited in an Act of Parliament.
I hope that the Home Secretary will see that the Government improve considerably on the programme which they envisage for 1954, and that we shall not be faced in 12 months' time by having to approve once again emergency legislation involving 68 Regulations for a further period of 12 months.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. James Hudson: I do not think that I can follow very far the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen), but I can agree with him that it would be preferable if, instead of having Orders and discussions of this sort, we made laws of a more permanent character through the ordinary processes of law-making in this House, rather than by the processes we adopt as a result of Defence Regulations and the like. I admit that that is desirable, but I do not know how we should accomplish it with the business of Parliament organised as it is.
I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman came to the basis of the case when he said that we have been creating by Orders and Regulations offences which did not carry a sense of moral turpitude. It was on that ground that he suggested that we ought to re-examine the whole of this question again. I agree that it is important that the laws should correspond with the general sense of the community in regard to the moral turpitude, but that is the question which is begged by everyone who uses this argument.
Where does moral turpitude arise concerning the offences with which we have to deal? For example, my hon. and learned Friend has been talking about the regulations and the law regarding drink and the use of drink by motorists. Many people think that there is no moral turpitude involved there. But the more we examine the matter the more we find that people's actions—[Hon. Members:"Oh."] There is a tendency to complain when I raise this issue, but it has been raised at some length already. If hon. Members do not like this argument let me take another, although I propose to come back to it before I finish.
Let us take the law and regulations relating the use of the roads. On the question of stopping at a red light—is there any issue of moral turpitude involved? Of course there is. But many people do not recognise it, and therefore an Order has to be passed to deal with those who have not a sufficiently developed sense to realise that the desire to cross a road anywhere—the claim to be free in the use of the roads and to ignore the dangers—is something which has to be curbed in the general interests of the community. Unwillingness to accept that general interest is in itself an indication of moral turpitude.
There is a tendency to make a distinction without very much difference. All these Orders and Regulations came into being in wartime, in a special time of danger, to be used against wrong doing or actions by individuals, but when they come to be more thoroughly understood they are seen to be a danger to the life of the community. Because they are a danger to that life they should establish a sense of moral turpitude on the part of those who decline to obey and carry out the law.
I therefore agree that, even as we get far away from war and from the conditions which produced these Orders, every time they are before us they must be carefully examined as to the part they have to play in protecting the life of the community from those who wish to make breaches in it for their own interests. Generally speaking, that is what these Orders have been doing, and that is why many of them should still be retained to deal with the sort of problem that will continue to confront us.
We have been referred to the question of Orders that deal with the requisitioning of houses and land. The Home Secretary said that so far as requisitioning of houses was concerned all the heads of the Departments involved in that policy are carefully watching the position, and that no hard and fast decision has been arrived at. Is there a sense of moral turpitude involved in this question of the need to requisition houses? I think there is.
Let me quote a case from my constituency that must be parallel to cases with which other hon. Members will be familiar. A large house was taken over from a religious organisation in order to

divide the tenancy of rooms between 12 or 14 women, who found a home in the house. Then, the organisation that owned the house wanted it back again for its own purposes. Lawyers' letters were sent to all the occupants, with the result that 12 of them were frightened off by the lawyers' letters, and the two others, more certain of their rights than the 12 who lost the day, held their position in the house until an eviction order was claimed against them in the county court. I am pleased to say that the court ruled—I do not know under what law, but, at any rate, under the powers available to it—that those two persons should not be evicted; and they are in the house at the present time. The rest of it is unoccupied.
The council, uncertain of its position under the Minister's new attempts to cut down the requisitioning of houses, does not know what to do in order to get the house back again for the general use of the large number of the homeless people in my constituency. I submit that any power in the hands of local councils which enables them to requisition houses should be retained. The Government should not be standing in the way of the homeless for whom houses have not been found by other methods, despite the 300,000 houses now being built annually.
In respect of the house to which I have referred, every Regulation should be retained which gives the local authority, especially when use is not made otherwise of houses or parts of houses, the right to step in and requisition that accommodation to help to meet the terrific problem that faces us all and about which all parties now pretend to be very anxious as a first priority. There is no case whatever for weakening on this issue.
When I turn to the question of land, I look, perhaps, through other spectacles. There is in my constituency an industrial corporation, who will not mind my giving their name so that the case may be ventilated. It is the British Bath Company, which makes baths and kitchen sinks and exports them all over the world, thereby earning valuable dollars. We ought to be pressing forward their activities by all means in our power. The kitchen sink, instead of being made, as formerly, of stone or earthenware, is now made of metal.
One would have thought that the metal sinks could all have been built together into nests and exported abroad in that form but the people of Canada who buy them for dollars will not have them in that form. The customer, it should be remembered, is always right if one is discussing modern problems of trade and retailing. Every kitchen sink must be packed in a crate. This entails a tremendous requirement by the company for storage space for the baths, because when the St. Lawrence is frozen the ships carrying them cannot be sent into Canada. There are regular periods in the company's operations when it is making baths for storage and needs all the land that it can get for that purpose.
But the War Office is just over the fence, and it has got a great deal of the company's land for the Ordnance Department. I admit that the War Office has shown reasonable understanding of the difficulty, and the matter is not yet settled, but when it is settled it would be assisted by the retention of the appropriate Regulations and their implementation according to the general needs of the community. Even though, in fighting a case on behalf of the British Bath Company, I might complain about these land Regulations, I think it is necessary that they should be brought more into conformity with the general law.
Another set of Regulations which, it is suggested, should be scrapped are those dealing with prices. At page 107 of the Defence Regulations one reads of the complete removal of these Regulations under the Government's proposals. There may be some case for scrapping the Regulations when it is remembered that in other directions in retail trade—for example, the alterations in furniture and cloth production and sale—the rather special necessity for keeping a maximum price on different commodities has been removed. But I should hardly have thought that the party opposite were feeling quite free to scrap all these price Regulations after the promises that have been made about the necessity to safeguard the cost of living.
Many of the articles from which Regulations are now to be removed are commodities that enter into general trade. People will become increasingly subject to the pressure of higher prices, against

which we were seeking to defend them when these Regulations were imposed. As things develop, we will probably find that we have made a great mistake in scrapping the price Regulations.
I will quote an example. In connection with the Monopolies Commission, we are confronted at present with the issue of the prices being charged for matches. There is a general, widespread resentment in the community, especially as what has been taking place comes to be better understood, at the price now charged for matches, which were once sold extremely cheaply to the community.
The need to have the matter examined by the Monopolies Commission has been admitted, but what is to happen at the end of the examination, when the Report is received upon the powerful Match Corporation which we have asked the Monopolies Commission to investigate, if we deprive ourselves entirely, by scrapping all these Regulations, of the power to fix a maximum price for matches? At this time, while the question of monopolies is being closely examined, it is very inadvisable entirely to scrap that type of Regulation, which has been some protection for the community.
I pass to another set of Regulations which has been dealt with already by a number of speakers, but about which I have a rather special point of view. I refer to the Control of Engagement Order, dealt with on page 42 of the Defence Regulations. It is interesting that this year and, indeed, this week, we should be scrapping this Regulation when we have just arranged for the continuance of conscription for another five years. We are making up our minds, apparently, that we no longer need to rely on any compulsory process for the direction of labour.
Let me be quite frank with the House. I entirely agree with scrapping this Order. I have wanted it done for a very long time. My old friend, Rhys Davies, who represented Westhoughton in the House for many years, used to protest against the continuance of the Order.
We are told on page 42 that the whole of Regulation 58A is to go with the exception, as the right hon. Gentleman


explained to me when I intervened, that he still retains powers to
make provision for regulating the engagement of workers by employers…and may, in particular, provide by any such Order—
(d) for any incidental and supplementary matters for which the Minister thinks it expedient to provide.
I can well imagine that anything which occurred to the right hon. Gentleman in a time of difficulty, concerning labour, would be regarded by him as "supplementary matters" for which it was expedient to provide. I am not at all anxious that he should retain those powers. If he intends to get rid of the whole of 58A with the exception of paragraph (4), then he would have been better advised to get rid of paragraph (4) as well.
In any case—and I stress this point, in particular to my hon. Friends—the need for facing the problem of a certain amount of direction of labour, if the House insists on maintaining conscription for the whole of the young manhood of the country, is not to be gainsaid. If the House is determined, irrespective of the personal desires of these young men, to take all young men of 18 and upwards into the Army, Navy or Air Force on the ground that they are needed for fighting and training for fighting; and if that is in a special category and is required because of the needs of the community, then we ought now to be considering the question of the coal miners, the sailors, the exempted persons in agriculture and elsewhere and ought to be taking into account the fact that they are exempted because apparently there is a superior need for their services as miners, agricultural workers, seamen, and so on.
If there is a superior need from the point of view of the community that their services should be retained in those fields of operations, and if at the same time we are conscripting others willy nilly into the Forces, then we have no case at all for withdrawing the semi-conscription from those who are required for services of a more urgent character.
I want everyone to be free of conscription, and as soon as I see conscription abolished I shall at once be willing to admit that the case is open for getting rid entirely of the direction of labour, but I warn my hon. Friends—the miners'

representatives for example—that at a time when it is quite likely that there will be a superior demand for miners' labour—even more than at present—when coal is scarce everywhere and men are not to be found to dig it, then, if we retain on the Statute Book an Order for the conscription of men for the Armed Forces, there will be no ground on which we should not proceed to the retention of men by compulsory processes for those services which the House regards as superior even to the services of the Armed Forces.

Mr. Raymond Gower: While I accept much of what the hon. Member has said, will he agree that the effects of industrial conscription, to which he has referred, might be even more serious than the effects of military conscription, which is limited in time and which results in all probability in a young man returning to his own home? In the case of industrial conscription the man might be sent to another part of the country and his whole life upturned.

Mr. Hudson: As I said at the beginning of my speech, I take somewhat the same view as did my old friend Rhys Davies, who was constantly pointing out the total disadvantages of industrial conscription of any sort.
I am merely saying to hon. Members who allowed themselves to slip into the acceptance of conscription for military, naval, and air purposes that they have laid the groundwork for themselves which will mean that, stage by stage, as difficulties increase in securing coal, they will be increasingly forced into the acceptance of industrial conscription. That is why I object to the retention of paragraph (4) by which the Minister says he wants to keep that part of the Control of the Engagement Order which will give him powers in matters which are incidental to the general needs of the situation.
I have only one more topic to raise and that concerns the whole question of the control of industry, about which hon. Members opposite are most exercised in their minds. They want these controls entirely removed. To remove them just now, in the midst of the burden of the dollar gap which the war has put on our shoulders, is sheer madness. The Government are appealing as the Labour


Government appealed, and this Chanlor is doing very much what the late Sir Stafford Cripps did all the time he was Chancellor—appealing to everyone to confront this basic problem.
If this House was really considering its duty those appeals would make it impossible to scrap the controls that have tended to keep industry in its place. We have often heard on Tory platforms about the advisability of getting rid of irksome processes and of not holding back the freedom of industry, but I submit that no generalisation of that sort is adequate to overcome the problems facing us, namely, of getting the working people to have an even greater sense of sacrifice. For that is what they are being asked, to make every effort they can to put on the market the production we need so much.
If we are to talk to them about keeping their wages steady; if engineers, particularly in the export trade, are to be persuaded by this House to get over their resentment, we cannot remove these controls now. And they have every right to feel resentment at the callous way in which their claims have been received by the employers. To announce, as this House is now announcing, that the controls on the engineering industry are to be loosened, is to imperil much of the best work of this House. It will not be made easy for any who are engaged in leading trade unions, and encouraging the working people to have a sense of responsibility regarding our problems, when the House itself, in an attitude of utter irresponsibility, flings overboard the Regulations that have done so much to ease the general situation in the first place. I hope, therefore, that these matters will be more carefully considered in the future.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Hylton-Foster: How trying must be the life of the Home Secretary. My right hon. and learned Friend has been sitting here since he himself finished talking some hours ago and has been abused from behind because he is not doing away with Regulation 55 and, just now, he has been listening to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), to whom we always listen with such delight, abusing him because he was removing Regulation 55. It is a very

confusing situation in which to find oneself and I wonder what it feels like.
I find myself in almost complete agreement with the anti-delegated legislation aspirations of the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen). The great difference between us, I think, would be that I would feel much more sensitive to the amount of time that this House can devote to legislation in any one Sesssion. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman was being rather hard on my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in decrying his aspirations to do exactly those things which the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan was hoping would be done.
The problem really is not to get rid of controls altogether—I imagine few hon. Members suppose that there ever will be a day when we can conduct the affairs of this country without some form of delegated legislation. I do not myself look forward to that as a practical possibility. What is much more interesting is how we can proceed to control the controls, and it is on this point that I am so anxious to be able to read the report to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) referred. That is what I want to hear:how, having to endure delegated legislation in some form, we in this House are to be able to control it in that form? Whether, when we have it, we still continue to call it a Defence Regulation, thereby acknowledging its origin in emergency does not matter provided we keep a firm control over the delegated legislation and keep it down to the least possible dimensions.
Having listened with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields, I was sorry that the rapture with which he received the proposals of the Home Secretary was so qualified. The Order Paper became more and more unintelligible the more we listened to the right hon. Gentleman. I understood him to be agreeing with the Home Secretary that the right thing to do with the legislative provisions now contained in Defence Regulations which we want to be permanent is to put them into easily identifiable legislation and not in the rag-bag, box of tricks, pattern of statutes like the last Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act.
If that is really the view of the right hon. Gentleman I do not understand the


objection to keeping, for instance, Regulation 52. Anybody can understand that the farmer does not like tanks charging about over his land, but from the point of view of discussing whether we keep Regulation 52 or wait for easily identifiable permanent legislation, I do not understand his objection.

Mr. Ede: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to interrupt, one reason for putting an Amendment forward to these Regulations is to get some account of the use that has been made of them during the past year, and some indication of what the Government are likely to do in regard to them in the future. It was only this afternoon that we heard from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there was this proposal to put forward some substituting legislation. Possibly, if we had heard that before, the Amendment might not have appeared—but I am making no promise.

Mr. Hylton-Foster: I am greatly obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. All of us who are home-goers by nature and like our beds at an early hour will no doubt be looking forward to a withdrawal of the Amendment. However, I must keep in order. I have a bad reputation for getting out of order on things of this kind and I do not want to offend.
Then there is the jolly topic provided by the Burial, Inquests and Registration of Deaths Regulations. I cannot, for my own part, follow, with a perfectly good statute already created—easily identifiable permanent legislation—what would be the objection to keeping the Regulation until that comes into force.

Mr. Hale: Surely it came into force last year.

Mr. Hylton-Foster: No. I do not wish to fall into an error of law, which I most frequently do, but I am under the impression that when we enacted that statute we provided that it should come into force upon an appointed day Order. Subject to correction, I do not believe that an appointed day Order has yet been made. The statute exists, but it is not in effect. In those circumstances I wonder why certain right hon. and hon. Members opposite find some objection to keeping the Regulation going until the appointed day.
I regret keeping the House so long, but there is a certain glee, a negative glee in acclaiming the decease of legislation. I know nothing quite parallel to it, except the theme of the hymn writer when he wrote,
My mind on pleasant subjects dwells, Damnation and the dead.
I desire to have my share of enjoying the extremely satisfactory legislative topiary which is carried out in the Appendix. Nobody has had a bite yet at the third paragraph of Regulation 54B, which died during the year. I should like to see the House acclaim its decease in affirmative terms, because that is the last remaining specimen of a particularly obnoxious kind of legislation—legislation whereby not only the delegate of Parliament but the delegate of the delegate is empowered expressly by Regulation to overrule an Act of Parliament.
I was horrified to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields, he having had such great experience as a magistrate, saying that having an automatic penalty has had the effect among magistrates of preventing their convicting. That is a most alarming thought. But I entirely agree with what the Home Secretary said about the deplorable effect of a minimum penalty in restricting the powers of the courts to award what sentence it likes. I believe, however, that there is an even worse evil underlying these minimum penalties.
Two years ago I began with other hon. Members to beg to have them removed. They have gone now and I want to celebrate that fact and to say that when minimum penalties are laid down and magistrates or, even worse, Her Majesty's judges are obliged to impose a minimum penalty we are either announcing to the world that we cannot trust the courts of justice to rise to their responsibilities and impose the proper penalty for the offence or we are acclaiming to the world that our law is out of tune with public opinion and that it must be a bad law. I, therefore, rejoice to see these penalties go.
Yet another Regulation goes with it—Regulation 93AA. I have always thought it ignominious for a demonstrably honest people, such as we are, to require a Defence General Regulation to tell us what stealing is. Much of all this is a matter of emphasis. The hon. and


learned Member for Cardigan says that what is happening this time is a substantial improvement. I prefer to call it a glorious, vigorous assault on this delegated legislation, which we want to get rid of, an assault which has been in a large measure successful and holds promise of even further substantial progress. I hope that the House will give enthusiastic assent to these proposals.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Nothing has given us on this side of the House more pleasure than to hear the declaration in favour of liberty that has come from hon. Members on the other side who imposed a continuation of conscription in the last few days. It is a little difficult to follow their reasoning. Personally I should like to express our sincere gratitude to the Home Secretary for using the particular power which always impresses the House—his great gift of clarity in expounding very complicated matters. He made a most lucid opening speech and I was greatly indebted to him, because until he had made that speech I had only a vague idea of the implications of what we are discussing today. I am not by any means sure that I have any clear idea now. [Laughter.] Yes, indeed. I shall draw attention in a moment to one little matter which the Home Secretary himself forgot and a number of Regulations to which he made no reference at all.
But, first of all, I have to face this question of minimum punishment and the observations which have been made on that subject. The House will know that I have a direct personal interest and therefore I should have preferred to have nothing to say about it, but having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), it would be pusillanimous of me not to say at least one or two things. I am not sure what is meant by moral turpitude. I am not usually good at interpreting rather pompous polysyllables. If it means that a man should be ashamed of a conviction I entirely agree. But I think that there are degrees of moral turpitude. If my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North finds himself at two o'clock in the morning on a lonely road 15 miles from home and the front lamp of his bicycle goes out on a moonlit night he will be subjected to a degree of temptation to

which he will be fortunate if he does not succumb.
I am on record as having said what I am about to say long ago before I had a personal interest. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary said that he was opposed to minimum punishments, perhaps he was overlooking what is the main and most substantial minimum punishment that the law imposes, that is capital punishment. I would welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman's agreement with me on this. There is no option for a court or a jury. They are bound to impose capital punishment for murder. Even the latest Report on the subject says that there is so much difficulty in differentiating between mercy killings and other killings that one should accept the principle of the minimum, and capital punishment. If the Home Secretary is opposed to minimum punishment, and I do not know the views of the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Hylton-Foster) on that—

Mr. Hylton-Foster: I suspect that the hon. Member would not wish to impose on any single individual the decision whether or no capital sentence should be imposed.

Mr. Hale: It is clearly unnecessary for me to answer that, because I am not in favour of permitting any individual in any circumstances to impose a capital sentence. On that I am quite clear and no one can be under any possible dubiety about my attitude. The hon. Member posed a question which has been posed for 2,000 years. He asked "Quis custo-diet ipsos custodies?" and translated it, "Who shall control the controllers?" I would have translated it differently and would have asked, "Who shall brain-wash the brain-washers?" That postulates a series of problems which we of this generation ought to confront.
I should like to refer to one Regulation to which reference has not yet been made. I am glad to see it maintained. I hope that it will be maintained and used and understood a great deal more than it is. If I may interpose in my own observations for a moment, I should like to say, something else that comes before that. We on these benches face a dichotomy on this matter. I do not like Defence Regulations and I do not like the form that


these matters take. I should like to see those things which it is thought ought to be retained embodied in permanent legislation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary was once a lawyer and is still a lawyer, because lawyers are rather like highways—it is difficult to divert them except under Defence Regulations.
I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that one of the real objections to the Regulations is that no one has ever understood them. No one has had the chance. It is quite a serious matter. They were passed all in a lump without discussion in the course of a few days in 1939. There were stacks of them and they have been amended since. If one wants to find them even in the Library of the House of Commons, which is very good, it is not easy to trace them and ascertain their content. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said that he had the assistance of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) in marking his card and that now his card was adequately marked he was able to say what was in force as the card had been marked by one of Her Majesty's counsel learned in the law, and a Member of Parliament to boot.
That may be so, but practising lawyers never had the chance of finding all these Regulations. At the moment when they were passed, I was busy ascertaining my income to be 6s. a week whilst my wife had 24s. and my children 7s. I had my mind concentrated more on my economic position than on jurisprudence and amendment of the law. That was the dilemma and that is why there is a real difficulty about the whole system of doing these things en bloc. No one likes it and no one is fond of it for its own sake. No one approves of having laws which we do not need.
The one Regulation which I should like to see given more publicity is Regulation 68CB, which permits a protected sub-letting of a house even in contravention of the terms of lease, subject to certain conditions. I am bound to say that until these debates I was not aware of that power, and it seems an important one. One of the very real problems which confront hon. Members in giving advice

to constituents is the difficulty of knowing on what terms a house has been let.
It is one of the curiosities in the long term, initiated by the Rent Act in 1915, that no one knows in the case of a rent-controlled house whether there were arbitrarily imposed any conditions of tenure the breach of which would make the tenant liable to be dispossessed by a judgment of the county court. Thetenant might be a victim of a breach of terms of his tenancy and, unfortunately, landlords from time to time supply rent books some of which have printed rules and some of which do not have printed rules. No one knows the rules and no one knows the terms in such a connection. So it is not infrequent that I have tenants come to me and say, "I have taken a subtenant in part of my house. I have done it really in the public interest because in a town like Oldham it is very necessary that people should not be discouraged from sub-letting a part of the house. Now the landlord is serving me with a notice. What can I do about it? Have I to face county court proceedings?"
It is exceedingly important that borough councils and urban authorities should take advantage of this legislation, open a housing register and see that publicity is given and, on appropriate terms, have sub-lettings registered in such a way as to preclude this difficulty and make the maximum use of our present housing accommodation. It is really true that the number of people per house today has gone down very much indeed. The number of people per tenement is today comparatively small. On the other hand, the number of tenements which are hardly adequate to provide a home for anyone is very high indeed. All too frequently sub-letting of a part of a house would be better than living in a house which should have been condemned some years ago.
I wish to come to one or two matters to which no reference has been made up to now. I find myself in the physical difficulty that my copy of the red book has disappeared since I rose—[An Hon. Member:"It has been requisitioned."] I think I might ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to use his officers to investigate that matter when the debate has concluded. It seems a highly suspicious circumstance that it appeared again a moment ago and has been returned to me with such alacrity.
I want to refer to the Defence (Finance) Regulations, 1939. As I understand, those which are being continued in force are Regulations 2A, 6, 7AA, 8, 9B, 10 and 11. This seems a classical example of what happens when we legislate by instalments and repeal Regulations by instalments, pulling out a paragraph here and there and sticking in an amendment in the form of 7AA here and 7 AB there. The unhappy public have to find out what the law is and what it is meant to do and what part is being preserved. If I refer to these Regulations in inverse order we shall get a better idea of their relevance today.
The final Order is Regulation 11. That gives the short title and does not have great significance, except that it enables us to know what the Regulations are to be called. The preceding one maintained in force is the Interpretation Regulation, which tells us what the terms "bank notes," foreign currency" and so on mean in the terms of the Regulation. The preceding Regulation, 9B, is a restriction on right to make agreements in contravention of the Order and again is purely administrative. The Regulation preceding that is Regulation 9,which is a rather amazing one because it generally provides that the provisions of Part V of the Defence Regulations, 1939, shall apply to the Defence (Finance) Regulations.
It is not easy to find why that is so, but as Part V is only general and supplementary provisions, they are not of great operative effect but merely provide the penalties for breach of an Order. So we have got to Regulation 9 without having found anything that is of any great operative value. Regulation 8 gives the Treasury power to obtain information for the purpose of enforcing these Orders and we are still in the sphere of what one might call ancillary provisions. Regulation 7AB gives power to call in notes of £5 and upwards, which I believe has been done, and so far as I know that is not of great operative importance at the moment. Regulation 6 has some significance today. It deals with the control of capital issues. That one is quite important and it is rather regrettable that it is not being operated to any great extent at the moment.
The only Regulation left—up to now we have only had Regulation 6, dealing

with capital issues, which has any marked significance—is Regulation 2A, which starts in these words:
Where the Treasury are satisfied that owing to the changes in the external or internal position of any country or territory action is being, or is likely to be, taken to the detriment of the United Kingdom, or otherwise to the prejudice of the efficient prosecution of the war…,
the Treasury may take certain action. I have not the slightest doubt that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell me that Orders are operated under that Regulation and that steps can be taken in relation to foreign currency or the moral turpitude of anyone who lives on the Riviera for seven months and so on. That may be, but I say it should not be. I say that an Order framed like that, which permits us to make financial measures against countries which appear to be operating a policy to the detriment of the successful prosecution of a war which has been over, in practice at any rate, for seven or eight years, is not the sort of thing on which we ought to hang financial measures at the moment. I therefore suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman what he might consider that, and say a few words about it, and tell us what is the scope and ambit of the Defence (Finance) Regulations at this moment.
I do not want to be discourteous. I am on my best behaviour today. I have been studiously polite to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. But there is one little matter on which I would modestly and temperately raise a little voice of criticism. When he flattered himself that he had at last revoked the Order which provided for the stopping up of highways, I suggest that on the whole he was pinning a medal on his breast with a little more abandon than his particular deserts in this connection merited, whatever may be his deserts on general grounds. What he has done is to revoke the Order which enabled the stopping up of highways by opencast coal operators. We have been told it was rarely used anyway. If it was a question of a Civil Defence store, or to enable electricity operations to take place, we have been told year after year that it would take effect, to use a Parliamentary term, "in due course."
But when we come to the only Regulation in respect of which highways have been stopped up all over the country,


that remains. Highways are stopped up for military purposes, for aviation purposes, for aerodromes and so on. I am subject to correction—I am always subject to correction in any of the observations I make—but I understand that that Regulation goes on. Highways remain stopped up. The old maxim of the law, "Once a highway, always a highway" remains one of those archaic maxims which has disappeared from operative life. So far as I know, no one intends to interfere with the War Office, or indeed with any military organisation or authority, in their desire to stop up highways without much regard to the public interest and without much consideration and, indeed, without there being much chance of anyone making any observations.
That is really all I wanted to say. But I feel that the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) would not wish me to sit down without referring to the joy with which the historian or the collector of antiques or objets d'art hears at long last the voice of laissez faire Liberalism raised once more in this House. From time to time in the course of correspondence in "The Times" we read that the voice of the cuckoo has been heard at unusual times and in unusual circumstances with great joy. But to hear from a party which supports conscription today—[Hon. Members:"No."] Oh indeed, yes. We were told so by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) only a day or two ago. He said, "We support it today, but may oppose it tomorrow."

Mr. Bowen: If so, we are the same as the hon. Member's party in that respect.

Mr. Hale: The hon. and learned Gentleman shows no sense of moral turpitude at all. He is trying to get away with his disgrace by saying that other people share it. Let me say at once that it is not my party. It is the party to which I pay very loyal and generous adherence, with very great joy, and of which I am a perfectly happy member; and I continue to adhere to all their principles except on this point. I did not vote last Monday on the issue of conscription and I have made it clear publicly that I shall not vote for conscription in any form

again—unless, of course, my views alter very considerably.
I notice that people, as they get older, change their views on this subject. One reflection which comes to my mind is that if only half of the thousands of people who gave their lives during the 1914–18 war had been pacifists at that time they might have lived to be militarists today. But there it is. At least, mine is the little more respectable method of being not so opposed to combat in my youth, but now attaining discretion in these matters, instead of the reverse.
But the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan tried to divert me from my observations on his observations. He wants competitive capitalism to be absolutely free. He wants the laws of supply and demand, whatever they may be, to operate freely. He wants to import goods from all over the world so that the capitalist laws will have a last chance of having sway, no matter what happens to the rest of the world, and this little island will be the ultimate plot of freedom.
Under that freedom uneconomic coal pits will operate and we shall have no coal. Controlled electricity plant will cease to be controlled and we shall have no electricity generated from the coal we have not got. We shall have a complete close down of half our industry. But we shall still have conscription and an Army. That is the one exception which the hon. and learned Gentleman makes. We shall have an economic situation without coal, without hope, without plans. But we shall have a large armed force—

Mr. Speaker: By the wish of both parties I agreed to a very wide discussion on this matter, and the limits are indeed wide. But they are not so wide as to include what the hon. Gentleman is now speaking about.

Mr. Hale: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, and I accept your correction. I could wish that you had made it earlier because I was just in the middle of my peroration.

Mr. Ellis Smith: It is not Friday today.

Mr. Hale: I would only say that we, on this side of the House at any rate, recognise the need for the continued existence of a large number of controls. It


occurs to me that when the implications of the recent by-election result make their full force felt, the right hon. and learned Gentleman may very well find that we shall need even more controls of a certain type to re-plan the industry of the country, and to rescue it from the slough of despond into which it has drifted under un-planned Conservatism, spurred on only by the increasingly despairing speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) for his speech. He was amusing, as he always is, in spite of the somewhat strange mixture of metaphor towards the end, which perhaps was due, Mr. Speaker, to a very proper desire to bring his speech to a conclusion after your intervention. But he was something more than amusing, at any rate as compared with the points of view of his hon. Friends. He was at some points positively improving, a quality which I think would in itself offer more scope to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) than the qualities of wit and persiflage which we normally associate with the hon. Member for Oldham, West.
The hon. Member did not do anything quite so unconventional, from the point of view of hon. Members opposite, as positively to say that freedom was a good thing—that would be a little too much to expect—but he did go so far as to say that it was not wholly in all the circumstances an unredeemably bad thing. I feel that that is a notable advance from the hon. Member for Ealing, North and other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, whose point of view in regard to these matters seems to be that freedom is wholly bad and wholly to be deplored; unless of course it is freedom which is linked with some abdication of national responsibility. That is the point of view they put, not of course in so few words—that would hardly be characteristic—but generally speaking that was the point of view put forward by the hon. Member for Ealing, North in his speech—

Mr. J. Hudson: Will the hon. Member permit me to say that I put precisely the opposite of that point of view, with the illustration that I offered to the House—and which I assumed the House, and even

the hon. Gentleman would understand—that when I limited a man's freedom at the road corner by putting a red light against him I really contributed to his greater liberty and to his ultimate freedom to move in safety on the roads.

Mr. Walker-Smith: That point was made in one part of the hon. Gentleman's speech, but the fact that he said something opposite in one part of the speech does not conclusively mean that he did not take the point of view which I suggest at some other part of it. I tried conscientiously to follow him through the varying points of view which he advanced, and I admit that I found it a little difficult. I found it difficult even to be sure whether he was arguing for or against industrial conscription. I was not sure on which side of the fence he finally came down after his rather lengthy analysis.
Most people see a difference between a temporary period of National Service in discharge of a national obligation and the clamping down of a detailed framework of controls on the national economy. Hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House cling to their view, however old fashioned and undesirable it may seem to hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the native genius of the British people flourishes best in a climate of general freedom.
It is in pursuance of that philosophy that the Government have so far approached this question of the Defence Regulations and administrative law during their two years of office. I should like to congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the number of Regulations that have been revoked, though I think it is right to say that if one judges by weight rather than mere numbers the record is perhaps a little less impressive. However, that is only to be expected. I congratulate him also on his desire to put emergency powers into a statutory form.
I agree with what was said on that point by the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen). His speech was very good. He did not really lapse until he made his intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West. It is a poor excuse for the conduct of his party to say that it was not much worse than the conduct of the Labour Party. But on the generality of his point of view, he was right about the


marked superiority of a legislative enactment over this form of Regulation.
I also congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend for doing away with the minimum penalties which I, among others, have always felt to be a most unfortunate part of the Defence Regulations. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) addressed himself to this point but, rather curiously I thought, he seemed to consider that the main disadvantage of minimum penalties was the possibility that juries might thereby refrain from convicting. I should have thought that that was an ancillary, almost an incidental, disadvantage.
I should have thought that the main disadvantage was clearly that which was so well put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Mr. Hylton-Foster)—that it is putting an improper restraint upon the discretion of the court to take account of the circumstances of the case, which is clean contrary to the principles which animate our law. One can clearly understand that at the time when these Regulations were originally formulated there might have been some case for the minimum penalties. At that time, these offences being new, and being offences because of the special peril of the country, some guidance might have been required on the subject of penalties. These minimum penalties should not have survived a single Parliamentary Session after the end of the war, and most people will be heartily glad to see them go.
I wish to make special reference to two Regulations. I refer first to Regulation 51 which has been referred to several times today and which is of great importance from many points of view. As I understand the position, the effect of what we are doing if we extend the operation of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act for a further year, will be two-fold. For one more year it will enable requisitioning authorities to take possession of new land or buildings; but it will extend the period during which requisition can be made on premises already requisitioned for two years after the expiry of the extended Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act—that is to say, until December, 1956. If that is right it is as well that, the House

should realise that there is this further period for the holding on to premises which are already under requisition. The chief problem of this Regulation is the great human problem of the 125,000 families living in the 75,000 requisitioned houses, which means 75,000 other persons or families being kept out of their property.
The only way in which the problem can be approached is under what is known in the Rent Restriction Acts as the balance of hardship principle. But that is a hard principle to have to interpret or enforce, because it means hardship almost always on at least one of the two parties concerned. Unfortunately the Defence Regulations, unlike the Rent Restriction Acts, being temporary Measures, there is no machinery even for embarking on this difficult test of the balance of hardship. This is one of the inevitable shortcomings of temporary legislation of this sort.
I should have thought that as a long-term measure requisitioning is inherently unsatisfactory. For example, there is no procedure for the hearing of objections or for inquiry when premises are requisitioned. It is unlike compulsory purchase under which there is an elaborate code of objection and inquiry because that is of a permanent nature. But, as requisitioning is becoming semipermanent, it seems unfortunate that there are no such provisions affecting it. Also, the compensation questions arising out of requisition are exceptionally difficult and complex. I know of no statutes more complicated than the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred. All these seem to me to be reasons why the requisitioning procedure is unsatisfactory when taken as a quasi-permanent institution.
The other Regulation to which I wish to refer is Regulation 56A which, strangely enough, has not been referred to except in passing by my right hon. and learned Friend. It is a Regulation of the very first importance because on it is based the whole control of building operations and the licensing machinery in respect of capital works. The House would like to hear what is in the mind of the Government in connection with this Regulation and how long it is expected to go on in its present form.
I appreciate that there is a good deal of flexibility under the Control of Building Operations Orders which are made under this Regulation and which have increased in a gratifying way what are known as the free limits of licensing for building work. However, I wish to suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend that if this Regulation is to continue, or is likely to continue at any rate beyond the coming year, there is a good deal of scope for improvement in it. It is a provision which is typical of the complaint made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West that all these Regulations were drafted in a hurry and originally enacted without discussion. There is a good deal in the Regulations, as in many others, which would profit by an overhaul in the language and the definition of the Regulation.
I close by saying that, of course, one of the unsatisfactory things about Defence Regulations, when they are creating criminal offences, is that there is no necessity for what is called guilty intent in regard to the commission of offences under them. For example, in Defence Regulation 56A the mere fact of building, the mere fact of erecting a certain works, is of itself an offence, whatever the intent or the absence of intent may be. That seems to me to be a deviation from our normal principles, just as the prescription of minimum penalties was.
The hon. and learned Member for Cardigan probably spoke for most Members of the House when he said that Defence Regulations as such were necessarily less desirable because of their form, quite apart from their content, than appropriate legislative enactments. Most of us, while congratulating the Government on what they have succeeded in doing so far, would urge them to continue on this way.

6.51 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The House is indebted to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) not only for a lucid, witty speech, but for giving to these Orders and Regulations cogent and critical examination, very different from that of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), who was off again on the old cry—ancestral voices prophesying doom.
When one recollects that when the Supplies and Services (Transitional

Powers) Act was being enacted by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite in 1945 it aroused the wildest enthusiasm in the Labour Party, as it was represented as an Act of necessity in order to carry out their design for socialisation in this country, it is quite remarkable that only the hon. Member for Ealing, North is now left behind in that same mood, and with that same purpose in his speech, while other Members, except the hon. Member for Oldham, West who is practically with us in his critical examination, have deserted the Chamber and gone elsewhere.
I wish to start my short speech with a question to the hon. Member who is to reply. It is on a technical point. During his speech, my right hon. and learned Friend referred to Regulation 58A, relating to the control of engagements Order. He was interrupted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) who is now not in his place, and he replied. That reply did not entirely satisfy me. I should be most grateful if the Government could make it clear.
It seems that we are passing for another year the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, and its Schedules. In paragraph 7 of the White Paper we are told the Defence Regulations which will continue, some with modifications, some not. Those which will lapse are apparently not included in the list.
When my right hon. Friend was speaking he was asked how much of Regulation 58A would continue, and he said "Paragraph (4), about the registration of workers, and no more." Of course that is correct and that is what will happen, but what is the legislative sanction? Are we to have the Defence Regulation before us on an affirmative Resolution in its new form as paragraph (4) and only paragraph (4)? I can see how it happens in some other cases. For example, if one looks at page 5 of the White Paper one finds Regulations 68A, 68AA, 68B and 68BB, and it is clear in the just published Housing Repairs and Rents Bill that these Regulations are to be repealed by that Bill. I wish to know how the rest of this list in paragraph 7 is repealed or modified, statutorily.
The second matter to which I wish to refer concerns Regulation 51, which deals


with the continued requisitioning of houses. I am very firmly convinced that the time has now arrived for the Government to give serious consideration to a scheduled and carefully calculated programme of de-requisitioning private houses. The magnificent housing drive of the Government—the local authority drive—is having its success; private building is enormously improving. Surely we are now sufficiently remote from the war and the community is becoming sufficiently provided with houses for this policy to be carried steadily forward. I do not think it is going fast enough.
I know of a great number of persons who own their own houses, who surrendered them for the purposes of the war and who have not been able to get them back. They resent the attitude of Her Majesty's Government—our own Government—in not seeing that the pledges given in time of war are fulfilled. This applies also to the requisitioning of land, to post-war credits, high taxation and a lot of other things to which I shall not now refer.
There is a large section in the community which feels that Her Majesty's Government—Her Majesty's Conservative Government—ought to implement the pledges that Governments gave at the beginning of the war and which have never been redeemed. Many people who own their houses are perfectly satisfied that the persons in them could be housed elsewhere at no greater inconvenience to themselves and that they, the owners, should get back once and for all the houses which they once lived in and which are, perhaps, their only or their best possession. I urge the Government to carry on steadfastly with this policy in the coming year.
My final point is in regard to what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said in the comparable debate last year. I do not think from what has gone before today that we shall hear the same thing from him now. He left me in a state of some doubt and unhappiness last year. His was the last speech. Here we are returning to the subject, and I have waited all this time to have it out with him. My hon. Friend said:
It is much less dangerous to entrust powers of this sort to a Government whose approach to these problems is as I have indicated than

to a Government—were there to be such a Government—which had a tendency or bias towards undue and excessive interference in the affairs of individuals.
Then he gave a rather nice example from the field of viniculture, and continued:
But I think there is a certain force in the contention that a Government whose approch to the problem is that of this Government can be trusted not to take or use excessive powers, and, indeed, the fact that a good deal of this debate has consisted in hon. Members opposite trying to force on this Government powers which the Government with equal pertinacity refused to accept, is a very clear indication of that truth."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 2168–9.]
That is not good enough, for this reason. I quite agree that my hon. and right hon. Friends are very good tenants of the present House but we do not know what tenants are to come after, and the House has to be put into such a condition before they leave their tenancy as to be quite uninhabitable from the point of those who follow. I mean to say that there must not be left one Regulation, whether in the category of these Defence Regulations under the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act or under the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act which is no longer required for specific purposes. These Regulations which can be embodied in legislation should be so embodied, even if it means astrenuous Parliamentary programme.
In my submission, at the end of this Parliament, there must not be existing on the Statute Book powers which are not required or which are not used by the present Administration but which may be used in other circumstances and for other purposes by some others. I feel absolutely certain, from the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend, that that is his purpose, but I should like my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who is replying tonight, to stand a little in a white sheet on what he said last year and to reaffirm to the House and the country that my view is correct.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: The House will sympathise with the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke)in his unhappiness, and I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to allay that unhappiness, though the growing unhappiness of the people of this country


will not be allayed until we get the present Government out of office. But I do not want to be provoked by the noble Lord, because the atmosphere and spirit of this debate has been very different from that of the debate we had last year, and I hope it will remain so.
This has been a friendly and constructive debate this year, largely because of the usefulness and effectiveness of that year's debate and the reasonable assistance which the Home Secretary gave us throughout those discussions. The difficulties last year were due to the unreasonableness of the Leader of the House, who is not now with us, but, in retrospect, we can see that the improvement we have been able to make during the past 12 months shows that the discussions we held last year were well worth while and have led to profitable results, which only emphasise how thoroughly unreasonable the Leader of the House was at that time.
The House will appreciate that one of the difficulties of discussing the various matters which we have been endeavouring to discuss this afternoon is that the powers are removed by Statutory Instruments revoking the powers previously obtaining, and I agree with the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Hylton-Foster) that one of the essential problems is to provide a more effective way of discussing delegated legislation generally. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said, I hope that when the Select Committee's Report is published, it will be seriously considered by the Government, and will lead to an improvement in the opportunities afforded to the House for discussing delegated legislation.
It is clear from such discussion as we have had today that the Government, spurred by the debate we held last year, have considerably tidied up the Defence Regulations. I think they can fairly claim that the results achieved are considerable, and I should like to suggest to the Financial Secretary that perhaps he ought to consider producing another edition of the Defence Regulations. I know the difficulties of making this an annual publication, but, in view of the very substantial amendments made and the deletions made from the present

volume, it seems to me that there is a case for a 21st edition of the Regulations.
We have nevertheless some serious reservations about some of the steps which the Government have taken. However, while it is no particular consolation to be told that the machinery of the Board of Trade regarding price control has been largely dismantled, at any rate we can take comfort in the fact that the power of price control remains. In fact, what is disturbing hon. Members supporting the Government is the importance of the powers which remain. We are supporting this Motion today because, among other things, it provides for the control of opencast mining, for a continuance of requisitioning, because it provides—and this is what I would emphasise to hon. Members opposite—for general control of industry, and because it provides for price control of goods and services. It is for these reasons that we support the present Motion, and I can quite understand the embarrassment of the noble Lord and other hon. Members opposite.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong about price control.

Mr. Willey: No, there is a specific power remaining. After all, the Ministry of Food still have price control powers, and general control of the price of goods and services remains.
We approve some of the steps which the Government are taking, such as putting into permanent form the provisions about labelling and clean food, but we know that, during the next 12 months, some of the provisions which we are now extending for another year, for example, those affecting agriculture, may be revoked during that time, and we share the disturbance of the whole farming community about what may take their place. The opportunity to discuss that matter will arise if and when the Government make up their minds on the steps they will take. Meanwhile, we support the continuance of the powers which the Government seek to continue to control industry, price control and to continue requisitioning.
Our disappointment is that the Government have not chosen the right order of priorities. What the Government should have done—and we support what they


are doing—in endeavouring to reduce these Regulations as far as possible to permanent form was to have taken these vitally important Defence Regulations first. What we would have welcomed in this House would have been a Measure to provide for full employment and to ensure that industry should serve the nation, but, until we get such proposals, we support the continuance of these essential Regulations.

7.8 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has said that this has been an interesting debate and one singularly lacking in elements of asperity. There seems to have been in the House a general body of agreement to the effect that, broadly, a good many of these powers require renewal for a further year, but, equally, that the more such powers as have to remain can be put upon a normal statutory basis the better.
I think that that attitude summarises at any rate a very large body of opinion which has been expressed in the debate, but general agreement on that does not mask the fact that we are here, to some extent, dealing with instruments of policy, and that, therefore, a different view as to the number and sharpness of the instruments that may be required naturally arises as a result of that policy.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) made it perfectly clear that he regretted the abandonment of certain of these controls, because it is part and parcel of his general political and economic philosophy that the State should intervene to a greater extent and in greater detail in economic affairs than has been the policy of this Government. That does raise fundamental issues of policy—issues which I do not think the House would wish me, even it you, Mr. Speaker, would permit me, to enter into at any length.
It is clear that we should bear in mind that, underlying the very large measure of general agreement upon what should be done at this moment to deal with a large number of these Regulations, there is the very real difference between those who naturally, from their own point of view wish to see a large measure of retention

of these powers, because they would be necessary instruments of policy, and those of my hon. Friends whose whole approach to economic policy is to give a much greater degree of freedom and non-interference by the Government than is desirable in the view of right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
I shall seek to reply in detail to a number of points on individual Regulations which have been made during the debate. We might do this job better if we bore in mind the broad general picture which was outlined, with his habitual force and clarity, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, in moving the Motion. The statistics given in paragraph 6 of the White Paper to a considerable extent speak for themselves, although I agree that one can introduce a certain element of weighting as between different Regulations. The fact remains that, as a Government, we inherited from our predecessors 215 Regulations and that when we came to the House last year in a similar debate the number was down to 173 and that today it is down to 97.
Those figures bring out our general attitude towards this emergency legislation. Like the preacher to whom the late President Coolidge once heard deliver a discourse on the subject of sin, we are against it. When my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) suggested that I should come before the House in a white sheet I thought that it was much better to do so clad in an adequate White Paper. These figures make our attitude clear.
Another way of appreciating what has been done is to do what the right hon. Member for South Shields did, look at the latest edition of the Defence Regulations, either with the aid of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) as he did or with the aid of a skilled Department, as I did. It is remarkable to see the number of lines drawn through the Regulations during the last year; and in that context I quite agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, North that those circumstances necessitate the production of a new edition. Preparations are in hand, and although I cannot promise it to him as a Christmas present I very much hope that it may be ready by Christmas.
In considering the general conspectus of what we have done the House will wish to indicate its appreciation of the work which has gone on, under the direction of my right hon. Friends, on this subject in the Departments of State. Anybody who knows anything about the work of a Department of State knows how much easier it is to retain powers than to give them up. There is always the argument that we perhaps would be well advised to keep a particular power for a rainy day. The fact that it has been possible to eliminate such a very large number of Regulations calls for some appreciation from the House of the very hard administrative work and thought that clearly have been given to achieve a result of these dimensions.
I shall deal with a number of broad points raised by hon. Members. Perhaps it would be appropriate if I began by saying a little about the Defence (Finance) Regulations, to which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) referred and which are, of course, departmentally of some concern to me. As hon. Gentlemen will see from the White Paper, we revokedearly in August no fewer than five of these Regulations as well as the greater part of a sixth.
We revoked Defence Regulation 1, under which we could acquire securities for the purpose of selling them overseas:1A, under which we had power to direct the sale of certain securities; 1 B, under which we could give directions as to the custody and disposition of documents of title in certain cases; 5 A, which was an exempting power in connection with Regulation 1; 7, under which we could exempt from Stamp Duty instruments in connection with transfers to us; and, as has already been pointed out, all of Defence (Finance) Regulation 9, except the largely formal first sub-paragraph, which simply links the Defence (Finance) Regulations with the main body of the Regulation.
In addition, as my right hon. and learned Friend has pointed out there has already been presented and is before the House the Currency and Banknotes Bill which, if Parliament sees fit to pass it into law carries with it the revocation of two more Defence (Finance) Regulations, 7AA and 7AB. I may add that the future of one further Defence (Finance) Regulation, No. 6, is under consideration. We have made all these very large

reductions during the past year and I hope that they will reassure my hon. Friend, if reassurance be needed, on our general attitude on this question.
We come to the retention of Defence Regulation 58A (4) in circumstances in which 58A is itself being revoked. Let me clear away the technical question which I was asked by my noble Friend. The noble Lord asked me how, as a matter of legislative technique, the revocation of all the paragraphs of 58A other than paragraph (4) was effected. It was effected by an Order, the Defence Regulation No. 12 Order, 1953, made on 19th November and laid before this House on 20th November. As a matter of procedure that Order has the effect of revoking the relevant paragraphs of 58A.
As to the merits of the matter it is a fact that by revoking the other parts of 58A, notably the first paragraph, the power to impose direction of labour has been revoked and, as my right hon. and learned Friend told the House, it will not be possible to reimpose it except by legislation. All that therefore remains are the provisions in paragraph 4. The reason for the retention of paragraph 4 is that it is upon that Regulation that the Order known as the "Notification of Vacancies Order" made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, depends.
The purpose of that Order, which operates directly on employers and not directly upon the workers, is to secure that vacancies are notified to the Ministry of Labour and that employers shall obtain staff through the Ministry of Labour Exchanges. The purpose of this is to enable the Minister of Labour to discharge his duty of seeking to direct labour in the directions in which, in the public interest, it is most needed.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour informs me that in the last six months his efforts in that direction have had substantial effect in securing that guidance was given to labour and in persuading it to move to all the industries where a real shortage of labour exists and in which, in the national interest, it is important that shortage of labour should not continue. One of these industries has been the aircraft industry, whose remarkable achievements in both the civil and the military field ought not to be handicapped in any way.
What the future of that Order and of the Regulation on which it depends may be it is not for me to forecast. In the circumstances which now exist my right hon. and learned Friend feels that he is able by the exercise of the Order to serve a very useful public purpose in assisting the maintenance of the supply of labour to industries of very great national importance.
The big, general issues which were discussed included the group of Defence Regulations under which requisitioning takes place and the group concentrated upon Defence Regulation 55, under which the so-called "economic controls" are operated. Perhaps it would be convenient if, at this stage, I said a word or two about both of them. My right hon. and learned Friend made quite clear what the policy of the Government is on the requisitioning of offices by Government Departments, and, once again, the figures that he quoted indicate that we are not stopping at good intentions. However anxious any of us may be—many of us are—to make even better progress than has been possible, the figures indicate what our intentions in this direction are.
Much more difficult, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have indicated, is the question of the requisitioning of houses to provide accommodation for the homeless. The hon. Member for Oldham, West referred to his own experience in his constituency. I have had very similar experience, as no doubt most hon. Members have had. Indeed, I have had the experience of hearing the case in one instance both from the owner of the house and from the tenant, and as I listened I felt overwhelming sympathy for the one to whom I was at that moment listening.
These are very difficult problems in which the balance of justice and fairness in the individual case is quite extraordinarily difficult to be dogmatic about, which I certainly should not wish to be. It is certainly the fact that, as the building of new houses under the direction of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government continues at the high level at which it is now proceeding, the circumstances which made requisitioning a human necessity will diminish, and there will be provided an alleviation of an enormously difficult

human problem, as well as a very difficult administrative problem for the local authorities, upon whom falls the extraordinarily difficult task of deciding individual cases.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) and other hon. Members have asked a number of questions about the main body of the economic controls which are embodied in Defence Regulations 55, 55AA and 55AB. What I have said in general terms about controls applies to these in particular, and I think that the use which we are making of them—hon. Members on this side of the House approve of it but hon. Members opposite, broadly, disapprove—is diminishing. None the less, we cannot yet dispense with those Defence Regulations.
I should like, in support of that assertion, to give one or two examples of the way in which it is still inevitably necessary—I am sure that hon. Members, broadly, will agree—to operate the powers drawn from these Regulations. For example, the three Regulations together provide the authority under which are made the Orders which implement the systems of guaranteed prices and marketing arrangements for farmers under the Agriculture Act, 1947. It seems to us clear that it is necessary for this purpose to continue the Regulations at least until details of new marketing arrangements have been worked out and, if necessary, new legislation obtained. What is material is that the present directions for implementing the guarantees in the 1947 Act depend on the continuance of the three Regulations.
Equally my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is using Defence Regulation 55 as authority for a Statutory Instrument, No. 1016 of 1951, under which the Government are able to fulfil their international obligations in relation to the movement of strategic goods to certain countries. In our view, that is a necessary step, and I am sure the House generally will agree that it is a proper use of Defence Regulations.
Similarly, the Admiralty operate a similar Order under these powers in respect of the construction of ships for certain countries. Powers under these Regulations enable the Minister of Supply to control certain scarce metals,


including magnesium and nickel, and the allocation of tinplate. The Ministry of Food require Defence Regulation 55 in order to carry out the necessary controls in respect of foods which are still rationed and still allocated while rationing remains. Again, these Regulations are the legal foundation for the rationing orders. A similar class of case is the allocation of coal for domestic use, and the Minister of Fuel and Power requires powers under one or other of the three Defence Regulations in respect of both allocation and price control.
Those are only examples. I do not want to weary the House by reading out a long rigmarole of them. I have said enough to indicate that for certain purposes, in respect of which the Government have, for better or worse, a duty to operate powers, the Regulations are required.
I fully share the apprehensions which have been expressed by one or two of my hon. Friends about the possibility of abuse of these powers on some future occasion. I would, however, stress that the danger only exists so far as Defence Regulations remain. As I have already explained to the House, and as my right hon. and learned Friend explained earlier, when a Defence Regulation itself is revoked, only legislation can put something similar in its place. Where a Defence Regulation remains, it is then, of course, possible to restore an Order made under it which has previously been revoked.
From the point of view of my hon. Friends, it is clearly the most satisfactory course, when it is possible, to revoke a Defence Regulation and make a clean sweep. Equally, while we need a Defence Regulation for the carrying out of essential purposes of Government in these days, it is necessary to retain the Defence Regulation.
However, I fully agree—some hon. Members reminded me that I said something to this effect last year—that we should not retain such Regulations a moment after the necessity for making use of them and the powers drawn from them has gone. That, I am sure, is a principle which will commend itself to the House. I believe it commends itself not only to my right hon. and hon. Friends, as I know it does, but also to a considerable number of hon. Members

opposite who have spoken and who have made what seem to me to be most legitimate criticisms of difficulties to the citizen and subject which arise from this somewhat complex and not always easy to follow body of delegated legislation.
My right hon. and learned Friend told the House that, where powers are still required, we are hoping to make some progress in putting them upon a statutory basis by passing the necessary legislation through the House and accepting such powers as may be delegated by us to the House in the course of the passing of that legislation. I am certain that that is a satisfactory course to pursue, and it is for that reason that the various Measures which my right hon. and learned Friend foreshadowed, will, we hope, in due course, be presented to the House if they have not already been.
There are, of course, limits, as all hon. Members appreciate, to Parliamentary time which necessarily impose themselves on any processes involving legislation, and it is perhaps a matter of individual judgment whether we are seeking to occupy too much or too little of the time of the House for dealing with this topic. However, I can assure the House that the general desirability of proceeding in that way is fully appreciated by my right hon. and hon. Friends, and, once again, the evidence of what we are doing is perhaps much more conclusive than anything that I can say at this stage.
We therefore ask the House to renew this diminished—and soon, let us hope, further to be diminished—body of emergency legislation. In a way, its aspect is rather like that of the 10 little nigger boys of the song. An Amendment is moved, and then there are nine, and the process of elemination, generally welcomed in the song as in the House, then follows. It is a matter on which opinions can very legitimately differ. Some of my hon. Friends may think we are going too slowly and some hon. Gentlemen opposite may think we are going too fast. To some extent in this debate, as in last year's debate, the criticisms made from both sides of the House have been very much on those lines. It is certainly a fact that as a result of that the process of reduction has very much accelerated, and that the progress made in the past year was a great deal more than that made in the previous year, and I very


much hope that that accelerating tendency may continue to do its good work.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under section eight of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, praying that the said Act, which would otherwise expire on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-three, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-four.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

EMERGENCY LAWS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)

7.30 p.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under section seven of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, praying that the Defence Regulations specified in the Schedule hereto, which would otherwise expire on the tenth day of December, nineten hundred and fifty-three, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-four.

SCHEDULE.

The following Regulations of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, namely—

Regulation fifty-two (Use of land for purposes of Her Majesty's forces);

Regulations eighty-two, eighty-three, eighty-four and eighty-five (False documents and false statements, obstruction, restrictions on disclosing information and entry upon, and inspection of, land);

Regulations ninety-one to ninety-three, ninety-seven to one hundred and two, and one hundred and five (General, administrative, legal and supplementary provisions).

Parts I, II, III and IX and Schedules I and II of the Defence (Agriculture and Fisheries) Regulations, 1939.

Parts I and II and Schedule I of the Defence (Agriculture and Fisheries) (Northern Ireland) Regulations, 1940.

Regulations one and six of the Defence (Armed Forces) Regulations, 1939.

Regulation one and paragraphs (4) to (10) of Regulation five of the Defence (Burial, Inquests and Registration of Deaths) Regulations, 1942.

Regulations one and two and paragraphs (3), (4) and (5) of Regulation three of the Defence (Patents, Trade Marks, etc.) Regulations, 1941.

The whole of the Defence (Sale of Food) Regulations, 1943.

The object of this Motion is to secure, in respect of the Defence Regulations set out in the Schedule, the same result as for the main body of Defence Regulations continued in the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act and covered by the Motion just approved by the House. I think it is rather interesting just to make three points. Last year, the corresponding Schedule under this Motion contained more than 20 entries. As a result of the review during 1953 of all emergency Regulations, the list was reduced this year to nine entries.

I have already explained to the House the proposals we have in mind for legislation next Session to replace Defence Regulation 52, which is now the only substantive Defence Regulation continued by this procedure. Therefore, I shall not repeat what I said in the last discussion.

Two of the codes, the Patents, Trade Marks, et cetera, Regulations and the Sale of Food Regulations, are being dealt with in legislation in the current Session, while the Burial, Inquests and Registration of Deaths Regulations will be revoked when the Visiting Forces Act, 1952, is brought into effect. The two sets of Agriculture and Fishery Regulations are bound up with the problem connected with the future marketing arrangements for bacon, livestock and milk.

The House may be assured that a further substantial reduction in the surviving provisions continued under this procedure is in prospect during the course of the next 12 months.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. F. Willey: I beg to move, in the Schedule, to leave out:
Regulation fifty-two (Use of land for purposes of Her Majesty's forces).
I am in some difficulty because the right hon. and learned Gentleman has anticipated the powerful plea I was going to make to him. He has twice now, with anticipation, referred to what I was going to say. I have been further advised by the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Hylton-Foster) not to move this Amendment at all, and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has told the House that, having moved it, it would be our intention to ask leave to withdraw it. But the point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman is one of substance, and I am sure


that he expected that this year again we would move this Amendment.
As I understand it, Regulation 52 has a limited effect. It is largely concerned with the temporary use of land for what I think are described as "non-damage training activities and danger areas." I do not think that any of us dispute the usefulness of the Regulation, but we are concerned with the limits of its use. We want to be sure that it is not being used more widely than need be, and not more extensively than the requirements of the Service Departments warrant.
I think there is also agreement that this is not a Regulation which ought to continue in force longer than need be. The Under-Secretary has used the phrase that this is an aftermath Regulation. It is now a long time after, and we should like to see the Government deal with it.
May I put two questions to the hon. Gentleman? He told us last time that the extent of the land affected had been reduced to 120,000 acres. I wonder whether he can tell us how much further the extent of the land affected has been reduced. Last year also—the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary has anticipated me raising this—the Under-Secretary of State for War, in replying to the debate, said:
But I should like to think about whether something can be done in the way of a consolidation Act or a modernisation of the situation.
It is true that he went on to qualify it by saying:
I do not want that to go out as a promise from me. I would merely like to examine the possibility. I admit that there are a lot of complicated Acts in existence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1952; Vol. 508, c. 827.]
We would agree with him about that, too.
I gather from the Home Secretary that thought has been given to this problem, and I further gather, from the remarks he made in anticipation of this Amendment, that he can give the House some assurance that at any rate within the next 12 months he will be able to say in what form this can be put into permanent legislation. In other words, he is not in a position to say that he can do it in the present Session, but if we are discussing these Regulations again in 12 months' time he will then be able to say that the problem has been examined and a satisfactory solution found.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I beg to second the Amendment.
I wish to give the House an illustration of the way in which this Regulation operates, which is a matter of great concern to many of us living in the North-East. While, of course, we are all glad to hear that in future the powers given under this Regulation will be used in a reasonable way, I am not sure that that will give a great deal of happiness to my constituents unless we can be told that some positive action is being taken about this and other comparable cases.
In Newcastle, the Army have taken over, under powers given under this Regulation, a fairly large area of land in the centre of the city which used to be open for general public access, and have established on it a series of temporary hutments of not very delightful appearance, and have blocked up a number of public rights of way. The Newcastle Corporation have on many occasions raised this matter very strongly with the War Office because they feel that this area should long since have reverted to the local authorities for the general use of the public.
When I raised this matter in Questions in the House last July, I received the rather dusty answer that the War Office could not forecast when this piece of land would bede-requisitioned. I had hoped that on this occasion I would have the support of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith), who spoke so feelingly about the people of Britain flourishing best in a climate of freedom. I wish he could have been here to give a little support to his expression and desire for freedom in a case of this sort.
Here are the people of Newcastle-upon-Tyne who have prided themselves for many generations upon Tyne Moor, an open space in the centre of the city, and here is the War Office which has established itself upon a section of that open space. While the general public in Newcastle have rightly regarded this as a matter of necessity during the course of the war and for a reasonable period afterwards, they have become increasingly and justifiably restive about the use of this land and the apparent inability of the War Office to find any alternative area to go to.
I therefore want to use this occasion to impress upon the War Office the very great anxiety felt in Newcastle about its attitude. While the Home Secretary may say that he hopes to put the whole question of the operation of this Regulation into some better form—and I hope that will bring about a distinct limitation on the powers of the War Office—I must say it is very disappointing to be given the response, regarding a practical case under the Regulation, that there is no end to this requisitioning procedure.
The local authority wish to take powers, as a competent authority, to make proper use of this land, but cannot do so as long as the War Office remain there. I make no complaint about the attitude of the local commanding officers and others, who in this case have been very reasonable and very anxious to come to some satisfactory settlement. But clearly, the War Office themselves must bear the responsibility, and I ask that we should be given some illustration, in a practical case such as this, of the War Office's anxiety to withdraw from the use of these exceptional powers, and to use merely the normal powers of acquisition which are open to statutory bodies of all kinds.
To that, I would like to add a plea which is on the verge, or just within the bounds, of order. The War Office, at the same time, should carefully review from year to year the areas of land that they have in their possession for manoeuvres and other activities, where there are very natural conflicts between amenity interests and the proper training of our troops. It may be found that areas which are being taken, both under the emergency Regulations and other provisions, and thought to be necessary, at one time, for the proper training of troops may, in practice, be shown to be more extensive than actually required.
There are certain places near the Border, in some of our most lovely country, where land has been in occupation by the War Office for some years and little or no use has been made of it. There is strong feeling there, where there are alternative amenity demands of some importance in an area which may well be designated as a national park before very long. It is right and proper, I think, that there should be a review, undertaken on

the initiative of the War Office itself, to try to make absolutely sure that no unnecessary area of land is reserved to them for their use. If, as I think can be proved, they are not likely to make much use of it, it should be restored to the general amenity use that we all so much desire.
With that invitation to the War Office to show, in a practical way, their anxiety to make as little use of their powers as possible, I have pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Tudor Watkins: I trust that the House will not mind, if, while supporting this Amendment, I seek further information. The Home Secretary, who is also Minister for Welsh Affairs, did not give the acreage of land in Wales held by the War Office at the present time. We, as Welsh Members, have always insisted that the War Office has taken a greater proportion of Welsh land than of land in Scotland or England. I should like to be told, at some other time if it is not possible today, how much land is actually held now in Wales by the War Office.
I welcomed the statement made by the Home Secretary, when he moved the first Motion, with regard to this particular Regulation in the future. I think it would be a very good thing to have some other type of legislation in order to get land for Her Majesty's Forces. That would give assistance to those who have protested all along against this particular Defence Regulation, particularly when local authorities and town and country planning committees are not informed what use is made of land. In fact, not much information is given at all.
While welcoming the legislation mentioned, I would suggest to the Home Secretary that, until such legislation is on the Statute Book, we might have an undertaking—and the Government must have something definite in mind—in regard to co-operation with local authorities, and to have a spirit translated into that Defence Regulation. I ask that, because the Under-Secretary of State for War knows that I am to meet him tomorrow in connection with it.
I do not want to raise that matter now, but I give due warning of what I shall say to him tomorrow, which is, that I shall not be a contented party, being


Welshmen we never are, but, at the same time, I commend the fact that new legislation is to be introduced. I am sure it will be welcomed if its provisions are acceptable to the whole House, and if there is greater co-operation with local authorities in particular I myself will welcome it.

7.47 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison): After the House has heard my right hon. and learned Friend speak on the broad lines of what is proposed I do not think I am left with a great deal to explain, but I am left with some rather minor points which I would like to deal with as quickly and as reasonably as I can.
First of all, I think I must remind the House, of the powers which are held under this Regulation 52, because I had great difficulty, last year, in distinguishing and differentiating between the powers under Regulations 51 and 52. At the moment, of course, we are only talking about Regulation 52. The powers under that Regulation only give us, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) realised, training rights of a temporary and part-time character. Consequently, the illustration which the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) gave does not come under this Regulation at all but under one which we have already disposed of. But I do not want, on a technicality, to slide out of answering him, if you, Sir, will allow me.
We are, of course, anxious, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, to get rid of these Regulations, and to get rid of the need to use them, as extensively and quickly as we reasonably can, but Parliament cannot impose upon the Army the tasks of having to train and prepare the Forces, and then to deny them the facilities for carrying out that training. Wherever we go we are not particularly popular. I, in my own home in Scotland, would be as aggravated as anyone else if the Army came and trained on my ground or built things upon it, but I do ask the House to bear in mind that it cannot have its cake and eat it. It cannot expect the Army to train and manoeuvre and yet deny it the possibility so to do.
The powers under Regulation 52, as I have explained, are merely to train over

land. It is largely non-damage training, that is to say, to use land temporarily, and only on certain limited occasions, for certain training purposes. An illustration would be the closing off of a certain area, such as a danger area behind a range, on days on which the range is being used. All the rest of the time, all the rest of the year except for this use on those days, that land is available to that owner, and is being cultivated in the normal and usual way. The minimum of interference with agricultural production takes place.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North, asked to be assured that the extent of the land affected was reviewed and that we did not keep control over more than we needed, and he asked for an illustration of what we had done in the past year. I will give the figures quite quickly. At the peak time, 11 million acres of land were held under this Regulation; that is to say, we had limited training rights over 11 million acres. At the end of last year we held 120,000 acres. At the end of November, 1953, it will be 87,000 acres.
Although those figures may still seem a little significant, of those 87,000 acres we are at the moment negotiating long-term agreements over no less than 80,000. That leaves 7,000, of which 3,000 are under discussion as to their future with several Government Departments, and as to 1,000 acres we are negotiating for alternative areas. A thousand more will be given up when we have cleared them of unexploded ammunition, and we are left with only 2,000 acres in doubt. I think that is very considerable progress, and that it shows that we are not relying upon this Regulation at all for our current needs. We have not used it in one case in the past year, and it is extremely unlikely that we shall have to use it in the future while the legislation to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred is being prepared.
The only other point that I am left to answer is that which was referred to by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins). The answer is that I believe he is coming to see me tomorrow and I shall be very glad to tell him the percentage of training areas held in his country. He said that not much information has been given locally in the past. I do not know how much was given in the past because we have made


practically no use of this Defence Regulation, but I can say that co-operation with local authorities and consultation with interests concerned would certainly be one of the considerations which the Government would have in mind when considering the whole problem of legislation.

Mr. Blenkinsop: While appreciating the mistake into which I have fallen, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will be kind enough to look into this case again to see whether any greater progress can be made, in view of the rather disturbing answer which was given earlier on that no hope could be held out of any progress? Would he also consider whether some temporary use could be made of the area by the public?

Mr. Hutchison: I certainly will do so. I apologise for having missed out that point. I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would send me information of any particular case he has in mind so that I can track it down in our files, as well as particulars of any land held by the War Office under Regulation 51 or Regulation 52 of which, as he indicated, practically no use was made. I should be glad of that information so that we can ascertain whether we need it any longer.

Mr. Willey: In view of the explanation that we have had from the Under-Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Hale: I beg to move, in the Schedule, to leave out:
Regulation one and paragraphs (4) to (10) of Regulation five of the Defence (Burial, Inquests and Registration of Deaths) Regulations, 1942.
This part of the Schedule refers to the Defence (Burial, Inquests and Registration of Deaths) Regulations, 1942. Perhaps the most remarkable feature about these Regulations is that most of them have already been interred. But we still have what must be by far the most remarkable Regulation that we have ever had to discuss in this House, because it arises in a most unusual way and it deals with a most unusual matter. It attempts to provide for a situation which no one could ever consider as having been at any time, even in war-time, normal.
The Regulation deals with the holding of inquests arising out of the presence of American soldiers in this country. One might well understand that there was some desire for reciprocity in this matter. One might understand that there might be circumstances in which inquests could be adapted because of the very great difficulties in reconciling two systems of law. But this Regulation goes on a great deal further than any such Regulation ever ought to have done, because it provides two things. It provides that if the death of an English man or woman is caused in circumstances in which there may be some blame imputed to an American serving soldier, the coroner shall not hold an inquest on the English man or woman if any charge is being presented before an American court in this country arising out of the death.
Regulation 5 (5) says:
If, on an inquest touching the death of a person other than a member of the American forces, the coroner is satisfied before the inquest is completed that a member of the American forces has been charged before a court of the United States of America with any offence involving responsibility for the death of the deceased person, or is being detained by any authority of the United States of America with a view to his being so charged, then, unless the Secretary of State otherwise directs, the coroner shall adjourn the inquest and, if a jury has been summoned, shall discharge the jury, and shall furnish the registrar of deaths with a certificate stating the particulars necessary for the registration of the death….
He cannot resume the inquest without the authority of the Secretary of State in any circumstances. If he does resume it, he has to start the whole procedure de novo. That is the case of the death of a British subject caused in circumstances in which there may beblame imputed to an American—as I understand it, whether criminal or civil.
What happens when the death of an American is caused by an Englishman? We get the answer to that in paragraph (4) of Regulation 5:
If any coroner having jurisdiction to hold an inquest touching a death is satisfied that the deceased person was at the time of his death a member of the American forces, then, unless the Secretary of State otherwise directs, the coroner shall not hold the inquest…
So we get the worst of both worlds. In both cases American law prevails. In both cases the ordinary process of English law is suspended in connection with the death of a British citizen on


British soil, or some alleged responsibility on a British citizen for the death of an American. That seems to me to be perhaps the most surprising of all the Regulations which were ever passed.
When I rose to speak on an earlier occasion, I began by saying that there were two things for which I was grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It may be that I so rarely express gratitude to him that it explains the fact that I forgot to mention the second of the two things. I wanted to express gratitude to him, as representing Her Majesty's Government, for the fact that we were discussing the matter today at a reasonable hour.
One of our difficulties about this Regulation is that we commenced the discussion of these matters last year at about 10.20 p.m. after a long and somewhat heated discussion of an important Measure. Such was the urgency of the business of Her Majesty's Government at that time, that matters of this kind and of this importance had to be taken very late at night. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember what happened.
At about 6.30 in the morning the right hon. and learned Gentleman came to the conclusion that the business for the following day, or indeed for that day, was so important that we must not jeopardise it, and we made an effort to terminate the proceedings with as much rapidity as possible and inevitably with as little information as possible. I remember that the Motion was almost ruled out of order by the Chair before it was moved, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) rose to move it in order that he could explain that he did not want to withdraw it. One minute was occupied over that. Then my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) moved—and I seconded—an Amendment, which was negatived in a matter of four or five minutes.
I hope that that will not happen again. I think I can say that we are now all happy. I do not want to emphasise it, but there were some signs, at that time, that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House was occasionally lapsing into an irritability quite uncharacteristic of so genial a figure, and we all regretted it. There it was, and we had to suffer for it. I remember that

night, because when I surveyed the benches opposite I saw a scene which I knew, instinctively, that I had seen before. It was not until I returned home and saw the famous picture of "The Death of Sardanapalus" that I realised it was a complete repetition of the scene, with the eunuchs standing round in the foreground with an air of worry, despair and distress. There were the voluptuous curves of the recumbent forms reclining along the chaises longues opposite—the forms of the Tory back benchers.
The only thing which gave some lack of verisimilitude to the picture was the fact that the ancient king had departed, about 10 hours before, to his bed at No. 10 Downing Street. We hope that in the future we shall be able to discuss these matters as happily and in as friendly a spirit as we are doing now, but I must emphasise that we do take a serious view of this question of continuing legislation, however justified it may have been in time of war or in the years immediately following.
Some specific undertakings were given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in this matter. I am not suggesting that he has broken them. We know what has happened, but it is as well to bring out the fact. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East in moving the Motion raised some very specific matters on the last occasion. He said:
The first question I wish to ask of the Minister is whether this Regulation is necessary at all? Very recently the House passed the Visiting Forces Act which, we were told, was intended to deal with all aspects of the relations between ourselves and our friends in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. So far as I can see there is nothing in the Regulation which is not covered by the Act.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, in reply:
I can come very near to the point that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has put to me, because the intention is that these Regulations shall be replaced by Section 7 of the Visiting Forces Act when it comes into force and is applied to the American Forces."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1952; Vol. 508, c. 911–4.]
The Visiting Forces Act was apparently one of those urgently important Measures which necessitated the House sitting until six o'clock. Apparently the Government thought it so urgent to get that Bill through that we had to sit through the night.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hale: At any rate, it was one of the Bills which jammed up the Session. Apparently it was dealt with a month or two before. That makes it worse. The defence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman on this occasion is not a mitigation but an aggravation. If I am technically wrong in saying that that was the particular Bill which caused our time to be taken up and which resulted in a late sitting at a difficult hour, it only means that the Visiting Forces Bill had been passed for just a little longer, so it was even less urgent than I thought.
As I understood the earlier interjection of the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Hylton-Foster) it has never come into force at all. The appointed day has never been fixed. One understands the reason for that. The Second Reading debate took place on 17th October, 1952, and the debate to which I have just referred was on 27th November, 1952, so they were very close to each other, even if the Prorogation of Parliament occupied a few days in between.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said—although I have not found the precise quotation—"We pass this Bill and then the Senate of the United States will pass a similar Bill in respect of British Forces serving in the United States." We recognise that they are not comparable problems, and it was a matter of preserving a balance of dignity on each side rather than the relative importance of the problem, because there is a greater number of American troops here than there are, or ever will be, British troops in America.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in his opening speech, referred to a whole series of Acts—the Commonwealth Forces Act, the United States of America Visiting Forces Act, 1942, the Allied Forces Act, 1940. As I understood it, there was to be reciprocity in this matter, and we were to establish a principle—which I think is a bad one—and a recognised and accepted rule between the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty countries in the matter of reciprocity in dealing with visiting forces. These Regulations were to be superseded by the Visiting Forces Act when it came into force. But it has not come into force.
I remember, a week ago, when something of this kind was being discussed at Question time, feeling a little surprised to

be told that there had not been any reciprocity in this matter, and that the reciprocal Measure had not been passed by the United States Senate, and we were alone, vis-à-vis the United States, in having passed this Bill.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Can the hon. Member give me any reference to that?

Mr. Hale: I was referring to something I was told. I am not saying that it was said in the House. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that that is wrong and that the Senate have passed it, I shall be very glad to hear it.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: I raised the matter in a Question.

Mr. Hale: I remember someone saying that the United States of America had not passed it. It may be that I am quite wrong and under a misapprehension.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Can the Home Secretary tell us, in view of his intervention—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): It is not in order to intervene to ask a question of the right hon. and learned Member in the middle of another hon. Member's speech.

Mr. Hale: Perhaps I can assist my hon. Friend. Can the Home Secretary tell us whether the United States have passed a reciprocal Act? If so, why has not he fixed a date for the coming into force of the Visiting Forces Act?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I shall answer that point later.

Mr. Hale: The information will be forthcoming in a moment or two.
In the absence of that information we are still left to deal with the Regulations as they exist. Here we come to a very serious difficulty. It is a difficulty of substance and of law. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) called attention, on the Adjournment a week ago, to the fact that things were happening in Lincolnshire which caused a great deal of alarm and despondency amongst Her Majesty's subjects. The hon. Member for Louth rather indicated that there was a possibility of a large-scale evacuation of his constituency. He said:
I wish to bring to the notice of the House a question that affects my constituency and,


especially, villages just North of Mabelthorpe. Near the village of Saltfleet there is a bombing target range which was established in the early 30's. The burden of all I wish to say on behalf of my constituents can be put into one sentence, please will the Air Ministry take the range away? We do not mind if they take it to Scotland, we do not mind if they take it to Wales, we do not mind where they take it so long as they take it away.
I am not sure that the people of Louth have that international spirit which I should like to see them possess. The hon. Member for Louth went on to say:
If they take it to some place where no one lives that would be a good thing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1953; Vol. 520, c. 1944.]
The real fear is that if it remains it will eventually be in a place where no one lives. Hon. Members will remember that the day after this debate a live bomb was dropped on another farmyard near Louth, and it was only a matter of sheer chance that there was no loss of life. It is all very well for us to sit here and treat these matters in a lively spirit, but the facts are sufficiently serious to warrant some attention.
The terminology of the Civil Service is a matter which always occasions me a great deal of delight. The terminology of Government Departments is even more delightful. When bombs are dropped on unhappy farmers in the direction of Louth, the Air Ministry classifies them, tables them, enters them into a record, according to the Under-Secretary of State for Air, under the heading of "Irregular Releases."
I hope I shall not be thought to put it too high if I suggest that to many of us that would seem to be something in the nature of a euphemism. Really, it is quite possible that the inhabitants of the rural districts have, perhaps, more forthright terminology. The farmer on whose family a bomb drops has, perhaps, a shorter but on the whole clearly descriptive term for it.
How many have there been? The Under-Secretary of State for Air said there had been only 16—up to now. This was, of course, before the bomb dropped the next day. The hon. Member for Louth made a few inquiries and ascertained the fact that four incidents had taken place in the last five weeks. The tally is now five in five weeks and one day.
What happens when one of these does kill someone? They have been through the lavatory window of a public house, the Indian Queen—or some sort of queen, I am not quite sure which it was. They have been in a farmyard, and then near a school and just missed two or three children, apparently by a yard or two. Seventeen irregular releases. What has happened? I understand that in fact some of these bonnes bouches have been brought over by American planes stationed in the southern parts of France.
If I were to pursue the technicalities of this matter I should be on the verge of getting out of order, but one may wonder if it is an offence to carry live bombs over England in peace time. It is not over Kenya, we are told, although I have some doubts about the law on that matter. But over England? Is it really legal for American troops flying their planes to carry live bombs over England? If so, what happens if one drops?
Can we hold an inquiry? In the case of a Naval man hazarding his ship there is an inquiry. Is there any inquiry about the hazarding of a plane or hazarding releases deemed irregular? Apparently no inquiry can take place. The coroner cannot inquire into the deaths of men, women and children of Louth, killed in these accidents, because we are carrying out this archaic Regulation, passed in the war and yet to be repealed by Section 7 of the Visiting Forces Act.
It is a serious situation, and I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me when I say this. I think the decision that we took to surrender some portion of our laws for visiting Forces was a very considerable gesture of respect to the people of the United States. It was something Members of this House, I imagine, rather reluctantly did, rather regretted having to do. When American forces were coming here on a substantially large scale, having their own organisation, having their own direction, there was, I recognise, a substantial case from their point of view for this decision, for they would like to have their own law. There was a very substantial case from their point of view.
People do not know the law of a foreign country. They do not particularly trust the machinery of law of a foreign country; they do not specially


trust the law courts of a foreign country. If I had been serving in British Forces in America, particularly having read accounts from time to time of American trials, I think on the whole I should have been happy to have been tried by British court-martial rather than have trusted myself to a law I did not understand or to Congress tribunals presided over by Senator McCarthy or someone of that sort. I say that believing, as I do, that the Supreme Court has been one of the finest courts in the world and has made as great contributions to the subject of the law of the liberty of the subject as any international tribunal as exists.
But there it is. I suggest we have reached the stage where there should be some finality about this. We should know what the intentions of the Government are. We passed through Second Reading, Committee stage and Third Reading a Bill designed to clear this all up, under the impression that we were clearing it up, and that it would be brought to an end under the Visiting Forces Act and be settled. Now, 13 months later, the Government come along and say, "We have not brought that Act into operation yet. We want to renew this Regulation for another year—this curious, archaic survival of Regulations passed during the war." I do say that it is a most unsatisfactory situation.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I beg to second the Amendment.
Speaking for myself, I think it is quite intolerable that we should be asked to renew these particular Regulations. The House has been left in a very unsatisfactory position. I think the position is even worse than my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has pointed out, because, after all, what we are being asked to do by renewing these Burial, Inquests and Registration of Deaths Regulations is this, as I understand it:we are being asked to renew for a further period the present most unsatisfactory state of affairs which permits British subjects to be killed by members of the American forces without the relatives of the British civilians who are killed having any opportunity of ensuring that the calamity will be ventilated either in a British court of law or in any other court of law. There is

no guarantee that there will be any satisfactory trial either in public or in private of an offence by which British subjects lose their lives.
That is a state of affairs which I for one regard as absolutely intolerable, and I am surprised that after what was said last year the Home Secretary can have the effrontery to come here and ask this House to renew this state of the law. The only ground on which he attempted to defend it a year ago was that it was part and parcel of reciprocal arrangements that would be made with the United States of America. As my hon. Friend has said, this matter was debated at some length on Second Reading, in Committee and on the Report stage of the Visiting Forces Act of last year. That Act was to make reciprocal arrangements between the visting forces of various N.A.T.O. countries, and the Home Secretary conceded that it was on that basis of reciprocity that this House was asked to pass that legislation.
He admitted the Act would not apply to the forces of any country other than the United States unless there were reciprocity, and we pointed out to him that so far as this country was concerned it could apply only to the American forces. He said, "I hope we shall obtain reciprocity with the United States." I want to have it clearly on record what the Home Secretary did say a year ago. The Home Secretary, I am sorry to say, had to change his ground several times during the course of the Bill. When first tackled on the subject he said, in response to an observation of mine:
I said, and I think I intervened to say it again, that I hoped to get reciprocity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd October, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 1081.]
The Home Secretary was tackled on the matter, and several of my hon. Friends pointed out that it was very unlikely that he would get reciprocity. We pointed out to him the difficulties of enacting legislation in the United States where the Congress has separate powers from the President, and where, unlike this country, there is separation of powers and what the President wants is not always the same as what the Congress may decide to enact.
We pointed all that out to him, but then, in explanation of what I thought to be his extraordinary conduct, he agreed that there was an alternative by which


the Visiting Forces Act would be made conditional on the application of a Bill to the United States. That was what we urged him to do, and he pointed out that it was an alternative. He gave his reasons why he did not accept that alternative, and this is what he said on 27th October, as reported in column 1588 of HANSARD.
…in the view of the Government it was not unreasonable to work on the assumption that the United States Government will ratify the agreement they signed last year.
In view of what the Home Secretary said a moment ago, I do not know whether the Visiting Forces Act has been applied or not. I do not think that very much matters, because in effect what the House is being invited to do tonight is to renew for a period provisions which have the same effect as the Visiting Forces Act would have if it were in operation. The substance is, therefore, precisely the same whether we are dealing with these Regulations or with the Visiting Forces Act. In either event, it cannot be justified except on the basis of reciprocity.
A year ago, the Home Secretary told us, first of all, that he very much hoped we should get reciprocity and, secondly, that the Government were proceeding on the assumption that we should get it. We want to know tonight whether he has got reciprocity or whether he has not, and, if he has not, we want to know what are now the prospects of getting it.
A year ago the Home Secretary went into considerable detail, arguing contrary to the representations which we made on these benches, in giving us his reasons why he felt quite confident that he could assure the House that there would be reciprocity with the United States in this matter within a year. These are the details which the Home Secretary gave us, as reported in col. 1590:
With regard to the present position, the President sought the consent of the Senate to ratification on 16th June, 1952, but the agreement has not yet been considered by the Senate….
I omit some irrelevant words. The right hon. and learned Gentleman continues:
…the next meeting cannot be until after the election.
That was the reason why he wanted the Bill at that time and why he could not have reciprocity until the next Session of

Congress, starting in January, 1953. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
Therefore, one has to accept that this matter will be dealt with in the next Session, which begins on 5th January.
That was 5th January, 1953. He continued:
I understand that it has been recommended to the Senate as important and meriting their early consideration.
That refers to the decision about ratification. The right hon. and learned Gentleman continues, as reported at column 1591, and I will quote what he said—

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: What date is that?

Mr. Fletcher: This is 27th October, 1952, and it is on the Report stage of the Visiting Forces Bill, when we ventilated the matter at great length.
The Home Secretary was put in a very great dilemma. I want to be perfectly fair to him; it was a most uncomfortable position for any Minister of the Crown to occupy in the House. He had the very difficult and, I am sure, personally most uncongenial task of trying to persuade the House to pass that legislation—legislation which, in my view, is a complete affront to the dignity of this country, as it would be to the dignity of any country.
I felt very sorry for the Home Secretary, as I am sure we all did, and I must admit that I thought he made the best of a very bad case. I want to do the right hon. and learned Gentleman justice; I have no doubt that when he gave this assurance last year about what he thought the United States Congress would do, he believed it. What I am complaining about is that now he has been proved wrong he should again come to the House and ask us to pass these Regulations.
I hope the Home Secretary will follow what I am saying, and I shall now quote from what he said on 27th October, as reported in column 1591. This was part of his defence and he was saying, in effect, "We must pass this Bill now; I am sure the United States Congress will give us reciprocity in the New Year." He said:
Legislation to supplement ratification has not yet been introduced, but I am informed that work is being done on it now, and that it is likely to be introduced at about the same time as the Senate Committee begins work on the agreement itself. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite did say that I should have


had particulars of the legislation, and I accept the position that, had there been any extract available, I should have had it; but the legislation is still in the stage of drafting.
I shall not read the next paragraph, because it is not necessary to weary the House with it, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman subsequently said:
Therefore, as regards the United States, we are advised that there is no constitutional difficulty, that the agreement has been sent to the Senate for ratification, and that the legislation is in preparation. When we take account of our experience with regard to the other Act, I do not think that we need expect any great constitutional difficulty. Certainly, that is the advice which we have had on the matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th October, 1952; Vol. 505, cc. 1588–91.]
That was a year ago, and on the basis of those representations, and with great reluctance in the House, the right hon. and learned Gentleman secured the passage of that Bill into operation. Today, there is a great deal of mystery as to whether it is in operation or not. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) is quite right; she raised this matter a few days ago. A moment ago the Home Secretary asked for information about it, and I want to give him the information. My hon. Friend put a Question to the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation as recently as Wednesday, 18th November, as to whether his regulations in respect of the insurance of motor cars applied to foreign Service men in Britain when driving public cars on the road.
The Home Secretary will realise that that is the most common way by which British subjects, unhappily, on occasion lose their lives at the hands of foreign Service men. It is in those cases that the Home Secretary is inviting us to say that there shall be no inquest. Regardless of whether there has been an inquiry for the American forces, he says that there should never be a British inquest, that those who have suffered, the victims, should have no redress in any court of law in this country and that the coroner should not even be allowed to make a certificate about the cause of death.
I am not saying anything against the method by which United States Service courts deal with their own personnel. I have no doubt that they are admirable and that their methods of discipline are admirable. I do not want to be

construed as casting any reflection on the disciplinary or judicial methods of the American forces in this country. But this is not good enough. Where British subjects lose their lives an inquiry should take place. I repeat that it seems to me a perfect scandal that in this country we should continue to put up with a state of affairs which prevents the normal course of the law being followed in such cases.
Will the Home Secretary tell us what is the position? Are these foreign Service men supposed to have driving licences or are they not? The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation was not very clear about that. I am not entirely blaming him, for he was only recently translated to that post. The Questions which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange put and which were followed by supplementary questions by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) were left unanswered. In one reply the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said:
If a breach of the regulations was committed, the police would make representations to the military authorities or whoever was responsible for the visiting forces."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 18th November, 1953; Vol. 520, c. 1723.]
As a result of a subsequent question, the House was left in a state of complete uncertainty as to what regulations if any applied to members of the United States Forces when they drive on the roads of this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange gave notice that she would raise the matter on the Adjournment, which I very much hope she will have an early opportunity of doing, even if she does not pursue the matter in this debate, to which it seems most relevant.
That seems to be the position as it was left last year, and I hope that before the House agrees to these Regulations being continued for another year we shall know on what basis they are being recommended to the House. Is it intended that the Visiting Forces Act should come into force? Will the Home Secretary tell us what steps are now being taken in the United States to give the reciprocity which he admitted is the basis of these Regulations?
It is common ground between us that undesirable though these Regulations are—and I agree with my hon. Friend the


Member for Oldham, West and I do not approve of them in principle—it would be much better when a British civilian is killed, even though an American soldier is involved, that there should be an inquest as to the cause of death in the ordinary way before a British coroner so that people may be satisfied and may know what has happened.
Be it noted that we are not dealing at the moment with the punishment of offences or with cases of civil liability for torts committed by American soldiers. All that we are dealing with is an inquest by a British coroner and jury, and whatever arguments there may be about American forces being responsible for the discipline of their troops I still do not understand why a coroner should be prevented from holding the traditional British inquest. As the Home Secretary knows, the coroner's court dates back centuries in this country.
While I do not accept the necessity for Regulations of this kind at all, I am sure that the whole House will agree that the Home Secretary ought not to sponsor them tonight unless he can give a more definite assurance than he gave a year ago that this basis of reciprocity with the United States will be established shortly.

8.35 p.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think the simplest way of beginning an explanation of these Regulations is to 'remind the House of the legal history with regard to coroners. Up to 1926, coroners used to hold an inquiry whether criminal proceedings were likely to succeed or not; that is, whether somebody was arrested on a criminal charge and whether it was quite obvious there would be criminal proceedings. That was generally thought to be a bad state of the law. I am not giving the actual details, but I think that broadly this was the position under the Act of that year. If criminal proceedings were likely to succeed, the statutory duty was put on the coroner to adjourn his inquest so that there would be no duplication in those circumstances.
Then came the impact of the United States of America (Visiting Forces) Act during the war. I do not think it really helps us to go back over debates which took place during the war, but, if my memory is right, it was debated in this House before I was a Law Officer of the Crown. I think it was in 1940, but I am

speaking from recollection as a Private Member. I think I am right in saying that the matter was debated and eventually, for better or for worse, this House agreed to giving the American authorities jurisdiction over their own affairs. That course was taken with the general approval of this House. Therefore, qua an American citizen the criminal courts which would operate in his case, if he were a member of the American Services, would be the American courts in this country.
On that the Regulations were brought into force and, as the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) correctly said, there are two relevant paragraphs to the Regulations. The first is paragraph (4), which provides that:
If any coroner having jurisdiction to hold an inquest touching a death is satisfied that the deceased person was at the time of his death a member of the American forces, then, unless the Secretary of State otherwise directs, the coroner shall not hold the inquest…
The other paragraph is paragraph (5), which provides that if, on an inquest touching the death of a person other than a member of the American forces, the coroner learns that a member of the American forces has been charged before an American court with an offence involving responsibility for the death, or is being detained with a view to being so charged, he can adjourn the inquest. That is the provision which I think was rightly based on Section 20 of the Coroners (Amendment) Act, 1926, under which the coroner must adjourn an inquest if he learns that a person has been charged with homicide before any English court in respect of the death he is investigating. That was the procedure under the war-time Acts.
The next stage was that the Visiting Forces Act of 1952 was brought before the House. I make no complaint against the hon. Member for Oldham, West. All I was referring to—and he picked up the point—was that that was at the end of the previous Session and the discussion to which he referred was a few weeks after the beginning of the next Session. I merely referred to that point because I thought he had in mind that they followed each other very closely, but he made that quite clear. It is quite obvious to any of us who remember that the major point put to me by the House when I was in charge of the Visiting Forces Bill was the question of reciprocity.


There was strong feeling in the House that there ought to have been reciprocity. Again I am speaking from memory, but I think it was expressed by many hon. Members that the Bill should not have been introduced until reciprocity was obtained. The broad line I took was that I hoped for reciprocity in the case of the United States, and I think—although I have not checked this—that I said with regard to anyone else I would see that there was reciprocity before the Act was implemented. The House will not hold me to a word, but that is my recollection of the sense of what I said.
I do not think that anyone who looks back dispassionately can underestimate the feeling on that point. Considerable feeling was shown in the House. I seem to remember one debate where we spent a considerable time on this point. I think it was in Committee, and it was raised again on Report stage. I said, and again this is the effect of the quotation—if the hon. Gentleman thinks I have it wrong he will correct me—that I hoped for reciprocity. As the hon. Gentleman was good enough to say, he believed I was saying that honestly, I hope he will accept it from me that I was.
That was the position at that stage. I am taking it in this order because it gives the position clearly. On 27th November, when this matter came up during the debate on the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions), which was a similar debate to this, I made a speech, which is reported at col. 918 of 27th November. I said, in relation to what was said by the hon. Member for Oldham, West:
Thirdly, he asked me about reciprocity. If he looks at the previous debate he will see that we hope to see what the reciprocity will be when Congress meets in the new year. I have no further information than I gave the House on the last occasion. I think that answers the points raised, and I hope that with that the House will allow the Regulations to stand."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1952; Vol. 508, c. 914.]
That the House did.
That was the position. Now let me remind the House of the position about bringing this Act into force. It was mentioned earlier today. To bring the Visiting Forces Act into force three Orders in Council are required; one under Section 19 (2) fixing the date for it to come

into force; one under Section 1 (2) stating the countries to which it applies; and one under Section 8 which applies to the visiting forces, in certain respects, the law applicable to the Home Forces.
It is necessary, and I considered this point very carefully, that all the Orders should be brought into force at one and the same time in order to apply the Act properly and with the proper application of our own legislation—a difficult and complicated matter—to the American forces. I wish to be entirely frank with the House. I had to consider, this summer, whether I should bring forward these three Orders at that time. There is, roughly, a six-week gap. One has to lay an Order six weeks ahead—again I hope the House will not bind me to a time; it is either six weeks or 40 days. That would have meant I should have to lay the Order somewhere about Whitsuntide in order to get it in before the long Recess. At that time when I considered that point, the United States Congress had not ratified the Agreement.
I felt that I was properly interpreting the feeling of the House. It is entirely my responsibility if I was wrong. I want everyone to understand that I do not seek to put it on anyone but myself. I thought that I ought to be in a better position to deal with reciprocity before I brought in the Order. That is what I decided, and I hope that the House will not think that I was too wrong. Hon. Members may disagree with me but I think that they will see the force of my argument. I wanted to wait until that Agreement had gone through Congress before I brought in the Order.
That is why the Order has not been brought in until this Session of Parliament. I am told that the United States Senate ratified the Status of Forces Agreement in July, 1953, and so bound themselves to give to our Forces in the United States reciprocal facilities to those given to United States Forces here. The reason why I have not got full details tonight is that I shall be laying that Order in a short time and I shall, of course, come before the House with full details. I hope that I shall be bringing that in shortly and that the three Orders applying the Act will be put before the House early next year.
That is the position. That is why I took that course. There are other difficulties. I wanted the House to know


what was in my mind last summer. It was my responsibility.

Mr. E. Fletcher: We are all obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I gather that the United States Congress have ratified the Agreement. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what the position is about legislation required to make the Agreement operative in the United States?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sorry. I have not got details on that point, but I shall have them when I bring the Order before the House. I have given the House the information which has been given to me. There are other countries involved. I want to leave the matter open. I think that the House would wish me to leave the point open as to whether we could not draft an Order applying the Act which will deal not only with the Americans but with other countries that have by this time ratified and given us reciprocity. I should like to leave that open.
I should not like the House to take it that I am giving an undertaking about a purely American Order when it would obviously be for the convenience of the House to have a more general Order. I hope that the House will take what I have said tonight as maintaining freedom on that.
I should like to say that when I said a few moments ago that the application of our law to the American Forces is not a simple matter, I was, if anything, understating the position. There are a great number of provisions in our law—there is the obvious one about carrying firearms—which have to be considered before we can have a proper Order. I am not absolutely certain about the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher). He was good enough to realise that I would not be equipped to deal with the question of licensing. It is the sort of matter which has to be carefully considered.
There is another matter which I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates and that is that the question of attendance of witnesses at visiting forces' courts is something about which the House has always been jealous and to which it will want to give the most careful consideration before it passes the Order. There are a great many other matters—

Mrs. Braddock: Am I right in assuming from the remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it will be possible when the Regulations are laid to make alterations to cover the matter to which I referred in my Question? Will it be possible to discuss the matter on that occasion?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am not absolutely sure whether the Order is amendable. My recollection is that a draft Order is laid and then it will be possible to raise the points, and, certainly, to have them considered. I should like the hon. Lady to assume that there is not power to amend the Order as there is with a Bill, but there will be an opportunity to raise points.

Mrs. Braddock: My reason for asking is that if it is possible to raise the matter when the Order comes before the House I should prefer to raise it then and not on the Adjournment, for I should then have a better opportunity to raise it than the Adjournment provides.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: If the hon. Lady will drop me a line on the point I shall be glad to give her the best advice that I can upon it.
The point I was making was that the Order itself is a difficult and complicated one. I wanted to make that clear to the House. It would not have been fair for me to put my excuse on difficulty or complication. I wanted to tell the House clearly what was in my mind about reciprocity during the summer, and that was the reason.
In these circumstances the position is that, until the Order is passed by the House, we are left with the war-time Act which operates in the way I have described. I earnestly hope that the delay will now be short. If the House thinks that I have taken a wrong view in waiting for reciprocity, I can only express my regret; but I assure the House that I was trying to interpret what I thought was a very strongly held feeling a year ago, and that was the reason for the delay. I hope that, on that understanding, the House will now approve the Motion and that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not now press the Amendment in view of the fact that there will be a chance of further discussion later.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Ede: It is a great pity that the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Hylton-Foster) is not present at this moment. In the course of a very genial speech earlier in the evening he made some rather flippant remarks about the Amendment. If he had heard the explanation which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given us, I am sure he would have felt that, on the most serious grounds, the Amendment has been well justified by the course of the debate and by the painstaking and frank speech which we have had from the Home Secretary.
Undoubtedly, this is a matter of very great complexity. Negotiations about it started while I was still at the Home Office. As I told the House when we were discussing the Visiting Forces Bill, the difficulty which I always foresaw in getting legislation on the matter through the House was that hon. Members, irrespective of party, would strongly insist upon reciprocity being obtained from any nation to whose forces, when on our soil, the provisions of the Visiting Forces Act applied.
I am not quite as optimistic as the right hon. and learned Gentleman is about the future. It is true that we have obtained the agreement, but, as I understand, to make the agreement worth while, from the point of view of reciprocity, there will have to be some legislation in the United States Congress which would appear in some stages to infringe one or two of the very sacred principles enshrined in their Constitution. That matter was developed at some length by people more competent to deal with it than I am when the Visiting Forces Bill was before the House. For myself, I should have thought that, even if he has obtained the agreement, when it comes to getting legislation passed in the United States, we shall still be confronted with very considerable difficulties.
I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman was certainly right in withholding the laying of the Orders which he has in contemplation until he could assure us that he had managed to secure full reciprocity in this matter with the United States. I cannot think that, if he had come to us with an Order which declared that we granted facilities to the

United States which we were not going to get for such of our Service men as might be in the territories of the United States, he would have had a very difficult passage in the House, compared with which the discussions which we have just had might almost be regarded as acquiescence on our part.
I gather that the position at the present time is that, during the coming year, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has hopes that he may be in a position to lay Orders and to assure us that reciprocity has been obtained between ourselves and the United States. If that happens, next year we shall be confronted in a similar debate with a very different position from the one that arises tonight, and no one can therefore tell, in view of the fact that we are not merely dealing with what our own Government do but with what another Government may do. Although we sometimes seem to forget that there is a General Election pending at some time or another, they never seem to be able to get away from the feeling that there is to be an election this year, next year, sometime, not never, but, apparently, ever, in their country.
Therefore, I do not want tonight to give any pledge as to what we on this side of the House will do if and when the matter arises, as it seems to me it must arise, when we get to the similar Motion next year, but I would advise my right hon. and hon. Friends, if I may, that I do not think we should press this Amendment any further, but that we thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the frank way in which he has dealt with it.
The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) suggested that the Financial Secretary should stand up in a white sheet this evening, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman, even when he makes his confession, never does it in a white sheet, but always seems to be twanging the harpand having the crown on his head, while admitting that he has not lived up to expectations.
I hope that next year we shall be able to deal with the matter with a full knowledge, not merely of what the United States may intend, but of what the United States Congress has actually done, and, if we can be in that position, I sincerely hope that we may be able to get rid of these Regulations, for, certainly, it is very


repugnant to everyone in this country that our citizens may be, quite accidentally, but none the less certainly, maimed and killed, and the processes of English law not be available to investigate the causes of the maiming or death, as the case may be.
That is a position which I am sure everyone here feels is to some extent a humiliation in a country which has, for more years than the United States of America has even existed, upheld the rule of law in matters like this, and has been particularly proud of the way in which these matters have been open to competent and judicial examination in our own courts, no matter who the culprit may happen to be. I sincerely hope that, next year, we shall be able to deal with this matter on the basis of known facts with regard to action that has been taken elsewhere.

Mr. Hale: I shall take the advice of my right hon. Friend. In view of what he said I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under section seven of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, praying that the Defence Regulations specified in the Schedule hereto, which would otherwise expire on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-three, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-four.

SCHEDULE

The following Regulations of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, namely,—

Regulation fifty-two (Use of land for purposes of Her Majesty's forces);

Regulations eighty-two, eighty-three, eighty-four and eighty-five (False documents and false statements, obstruction, restrictions on disclosing information and entry upon, and inspection of, land);

Regulations ninety-one to ninety-three, ninety-seven to one hundred and two, and one hundred and five (General, administrative, legal and supplementary provisions).

Parts I, II, III and IX and Schedules I and II of the Defence (Agriculture and Fisheries) Regulations, 1939.

Parts I and II and Schedule I of the Defence (Agriculture and Fisheries) (Northern Ireland) Regulations, 1940.

Regulations one and six of the Defence (Armed Forces) Regulations, 1939.

Regulation one and paragraphs (4) to (10) of Regulation five of the Defence (Burial, Inquests and Registration of Deaths) Regulations, 1942.

Regulations one and two and paragraphs (3), (4) and (5) of Regulation three of the Defence (Patents, Trade Marks, etc.) Regulations, 1941.

The whole of the Defence (Sale of Food) Regulations, 1943.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

9.1 p.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under section seven of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, praying that the enactments specified in the Schedule hereto, which would otherwise expire on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-three, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-four,

SCHEDULE

Subsection (1) of section three of the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946 (which, as amended by section four of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, extends certain provisions of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940, relating to wheat and land drainage).

Section six of the said Act of 1946 (which extends the Sugar Industry Act, 1942).

This is the third Motion in my name, and the counterpart, in respect of the emergency enactments specified in the Schedule, to the Motion just approved by the House in regard to certain Defence Regulations. One of the three entries in last year's Schedule has disappeared, consequent upon the passing of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1953. The enactments now proposed to be continued for a further year are those dealing with wheat, land drainage and sugar, on all of which subjects it seems likely that legislation will be necessary before the wartime suspension of the permanent Acts can be brought to an end.

I am not in a position today to be more precise, but the House will be aware from the White Paper on Decontrol of Food and Marketing of Agricultural Produce of the consideration given to the problems of wheat and sugar by the Minister of Food. Land drainage legislation will be required in due course, when the far-reaching recommendations in the report of the sub-committee of the Central Advisory Water Committee have


been fully discussed with the interests concerned by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. I do not think we are leaving these matters in the air, although I cannot give a more definite account today.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Willey: Now that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has the assistance of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture I appeal to him to say a little more about the continuation of the Sugar Industry Act, 1942. But for the preposterous conduct of the Leader of the House when we discussed these Motions last year these matters would have been discussed. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has said, we reached a stage where we had to forgo our discussion in order to save Private Members' business on the following day. We then gave notice that we intended to raise this matter, but for those reasons we were unable to do so.
It is clear that we cannot go on continuing the Sugar Industry Act indefinitely. The last Government prepared legislation on the matter. The next Socialist Government will certainly bring the British Sugar Corporation under full public control. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be well aware, in that excellent statement "Challenge to Britain" we made it quite clear that this corporation will be brought under full public ownership, but that is no reflection upon the British Sugar Corporation. They have been doing excellent work, and we wish to strengthen them in the work they are doing. But I think we are entitled to know a little more than the right hon. and learned Gentleman has told us. The Government ought really to have some ideas about this.
Sugar has been decontrolled, and we are told in the White Paper that there will be consultations with the National Farmers' Union and with the British Sugar Corporation with a view to ensuring continuity of policy. Have those consultations begun? Have any steps been taken to put them in train? Do the Government recognise, from their experience of the 1942 Act, that the pre-war provisions were inadequate?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman indicated that there would be an opportunity to discuss these matters during the

present Session, but I think we are entitled to know at this stage—after all, these essential steps about sugar supplies have already been taken—what the Government have in mind regarding the British Sugar Corporation.

9.6 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): If I may accept the invitation of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), he will recall that the Sugar Industry Act transferred the general responsibility in relation to the British Sugar Corporation from the Ministry of Agriculture to the Ministry of Food, and suspended the provisions of the 1936 Act in relation to the financial assistance given to the Corporation.
The 1942 Act cannot be allowed to lapse until we have reached the stage of new legislation with which to replace it. The hon. Gentleman will recall the reference to sugar beet and to the consultations about which he asked in the recently published White Paper. If my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Food relinquished his control to the Sugar Corporation—and that would follow the return to the 1936 Act—it would be given the task of fixing the acreage and fixing the price of beet.
The 1947 Act clearly places elsewhere the responsibility for implementing the guarantees, and it would be a chaotic situation if, in fact, the function of implementing those guarantees were passed to the Sugar Corporation. There would be similar difficulties in relation to the financial arrangement.
I recognise the point made by the hon. Gentleman that there is need for the preparation of new legislation. That new legislation will, of course, need to follow the determination of the policy for the future, an indication of which is given in the White Paper published a few weeks ago.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under section seven of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, praying that the enactments specified in the Schedule hereto, which would otherwise expire on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-three, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-four.

SCHEDULE

Subsection (1) of section three of the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946 (which, as amended by section four of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, extends certain provisions of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940, relating to wheat and land drainage).

Section six of the said Act of 1946 (which extends the Sugar Industry Act, 1942).

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

PATENTS AND DESIGNS (EMERGENCY ORDERS)

9.9 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. A. R. W. Low): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under subsection (3) of section forty-nine of the Patents Act, 1949, praying that the Patents (Extension of Period of Emergency) Order 1953, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 3rd November.
I think that the House would like a short explanation of this Motion even though we are all accustomed to it. By extending the period of emergency under the Patents Act, 1949, this Order continues the powers in relation to inventions granted to Government Departments by Section 49 of that Act. These powers, the use of which is subject to certain safeguards, have been continued by similar Orders each year since 1950 by the House giving approval to Orders in exactly this form.
Before 1949—the date of the Patents Act—the powers were continued under the procedure of the Motion which we have just been discussing.
I told the House last year that we were seeking to find some other way of avoiding delays in, or interference with, exports, particularly exports of defence equipment and of aircraft, which there would be if these powers under Section 49 were not granted to us. We think that we have found such a way, which the House will see in due course, in the Inventions and Designs (Crown Use) Bill, which is now before another place. If those proposals in that Bill reach the Statute Book we shall be able to put an end to the period of emergency under the Patents Act.

Question put, and agreed to.

Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Mr. Low: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 4 of the First Schedule to the Registered Designs Act, 1949, praying that the Registered Designs (Extension of Period of Emergency) Order, 1953, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 3rd November.
The reason for this Motion is exactly the same as that put forward on the Motion we have just discussed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

MILK MARKETING BOARD

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kaberry.]

9.12 p.m.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: This evening I want to raise one small matter, small though not small in substance, on the White Paper on the decontrol of food and the marketing of agricultural products. I think it would be right for me first to say that, in general, I support the Government's White Paper. I am, indeed, sorry it has not received from the agricultural community and from the farmers the universal blessing I think it deserves. There may, however, be two reasons why it has not been universally blessed.
First, I submit that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has not put over his proposals sufficiently well—with a blare of trumpets and a roll of drums as being largely the answer to the farmers' prayers. Secondly, I feel that the political byplay of the present President of the National Farmers' Union has not helped. I believe that, as an individual, he would be rather loath to support any scheme put forward by the present Government. But let me say that I do believe that farmers, generally, who have read this White Paper, have welcomed it and infinitely prefer it to any scheme which has been put forward as an alternative involving the continuation of the Ministry of Food and of Government bulk buying.
The point I want to raise tonight is contained in paragraph 10 of the White Paper which deals with milk and with the Milk Marketing Board. I hasten to tell the House, as I have done on occasions in the past, that I am associated with companies concerned with the production of milk, the manufacture of most milk products, and the distribution of milk, both wholesale and retail. But, when disclosing my private interests, I feel I should also dissociate myself, in the strongest possible terms, from that preposterous letter which was written by Mr. Clifford, the chairman of the Milk Distributors' Committee, which, I believe, was sent to most Members of Parliament.
I understand that that letter was sent by Mr. Clifford entirely on his own responsibility and that he did not even refer it to the members of his committee. We all regret that anybody outside the House of Commons should be so ignorant of our procedure and so stupid as to try to make threats of that nature.
The plans of the White Paper to which I have already referred envisage that the Milk Marketing Board will once more assume control in 1954 over nearly all the milk industry. There are some temporary exceptions. Once again it is to be given statutory powers. Not only this, but it will control the price paid for manufacture to all industries which use milk as a raw material, such as the chocolate biscuit manufacturers and cheese makers. Every industry which uses milk as a raw material, as I understand it, will be controlled as to price by the revivified Milk Marketing Board.
I submit that the Milk Marketing Board will be a monopoly—a monopoly of producers only—and I do not believe that any absolute monopoly, whether a producers' monopoly or any other, is good. I cannot help feeling that the Minister of Agriculture—I am glad to see the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is here—having failed to produce an entirely satisfactory meat scheme for farmers, then gave way to unreasonable demands to please the agricultural community about milk. I wonder whether, in their heart of hearts, the Minister of Food or the Parliamentary Secretary really agree with the Minister of Agriculture in this matter.
There are those who say that the Milk Marketing Board before the war did a

good job of work, and I am not going to dispute that, but at that time when the Milk Marketing Board was vested with arbitrary powers, distributors were forced to resort to a committee of investigation if they wished to contest any decision that was made by the Milk Marketing Board. This was a very cumbersome and expensive procedure, and on one occasion at least the Minister had to intervene to tell the Milk Marketing Board that they were being arbitrary, and persuaded them to alter their decision.
In addition to this, although the Milk Marketing Board is a statutory body which is given very great powers by this House, it has power to enter into direct competition with those engaged in the milk industry. They are empowered to set up their creameries and to use their wholesale bottling depots, and there is nothing to prevent them going into the retail trade.
They have their statutory powers and access to records that they are able to get from the industry, which is highly privileged information and they have also got power over the allocation of the raw material in this industry. For example, if the powers were carried to excess, they could say to a factory, "You shall have no raw material to put through your factory. We are going to set up a factory next door to you. You will not get any allocation of milk and the factory which we shall set up will get all the raw material."
I submit that this is a wrong in any statutory monopoly. The manufacturers and the distributors probably have as much money as—and certainly far more men employed in the industry than—the milk producers. If that is so, the various parties engaged in this terribly important industry should be treated as partners. I ask the Minister of Agriculture to reconsider this matter. I suggest that this revivified and reconstituted Board should be composed of producers, manufacturers, distributors and consumers, together, perhaps, with a number of independent, Government-appointed persons who might be able to hold a balance.
The danger of a producers' monopoly fixing prices for the whole industry must be apparent to everybody. If they fix the price too high for British manufacturers it is only going to mean that, as happened before the war, this country


will be used as a dumping ground for low-priced products from Denmark, Holland and other Continental countries. That will inevitably lead to hardship, not only to the producers but to the manufacturers and all others concerned in the industry. It is also bound to lead to an unsaleable surplus of milk on the market.
During the debate on the White Paper to which I have referred, I asked the Minister of Agriculture what opportunity the House would have to consider the safeguards mentioned in Paragraph 10 of the White Paper before the Defence Regulations and the Statutory Instruments were revoked. Paragraph 10 of the White Paper says that full marketing powers are to be restored to the Milk Marketing Board in 1954. It goes on to say:
The exercise of these powers must, of course, be subject to necessary safeguards for the Exchequer, the consumer and other interests.
I took a certain measure of hope when I saw the words, "and other interests." I thought that in the reconstituted Board the other partners in this great industry might be consulted, and that consumers, manufacturers, distributors and all the other people engaged in this great industry would be included.
I should like some assurance on that matter, and I should like to know whether the assurance which was given by the Minister of Agriculture—that this House will have an opportunity to consider the safeguards—still holds good. The Minister of Food knows only too well that, during the war, the milk trade was carried on in the most difficult times, during the period of flying bombs and the bombing of Britain, and that it was a great help to the Government. It served the public faithfully through times of great danger of those who were distributing milk. This side of the industry deserves a little more attention than it has been given. In addition it invested large sums of money in order to try to help the Government bring about their safe milk policy.
If I ask the Government to reconsider this matter, it is not with any idea of being unfair to the agricultural community, but because I believe it should be a truly British tradition to say that all sections of any particular industry shall be represented on any statutory board, invested with such power. Not only should the producers, the manufacturers and distributors be represented on it, but

the consumers, too, and this will provide a more equitable arrangement for all parties interested in this industry.
There is another point, on which I shall not dwell at great length, and it concerns the Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, Session 1952–53. The Report draws attention to the fact that about £1,300,000 has been handed over by the Government—presumably taxpayers'money—to the Milk Marketing Board to compensate it for any loss it may incur through the collection of debts due to the Ministry of Food. The bad debts amounted to £19,000, yet over £1,300,000 of taxpayers' money was handed over to the Milk Marketing Board as provision against bad debts and as commission. I should like to know what happened to that money.
I feel that this question deserves the greatest consideration by the House and I make no apology for raising it. I have more consumers in my constituency than I have farmers, and I only want to see fair play all round not only for the farmers but also for the manufacturers, distributors and consumers.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. Denys Bullard: I had no intention of intervening in the debate until I heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor). I rise to disagree with most of what he said about the Milk Marketing Board. It is true that I represent a constituency which is not normally recognised as one of the chief milk producing constituencies in this country; those constituencies, I suppose, are chiefly situated in the West of England. But milk production in Norfolk has made very great strides and I believe that at least some of those strides have been due to the activities of the Milk Marketing Board. I believe that the Government are entirely justified in the step they are taking to restore the powers of the Milk Marketing Board, both by the history of the Board and by present circumstances.
The Board did an extremely good job for the efficiency of production before the war, and I believe it did a very good job for the improved efficiency of distribution. It made one of its chief aims reducing the costs between the producer and the consumer. There can be no


doubt that in pre-war years it achieved a considerable amount of success in that direction.
It is argued that circumstances have changed and that, since there is now a guaranteed price for agricultural products under the 1947 Act, the situation of the Board has entirely altered. There is, of course, some truth in that suggestion, but the Board is an extremely responsible body which has been carrying out a great deal of the mechanics of the organisation of milk distribution. It did so even in the war. The accountancy has been entirely in the hands of the Board, and there is no doubt that it has done its job efficiently and well and has exercised its powers in the interests of the consumer as well as the interests of the producer.
After all, the liquid milk market in this country is the one to which the Board is bound chiefly to look and I think it is bound to watch the interests of the great milk consuming public in all the actions it takes. There are, as the House knows, under the 1949 Act various checks—and very considerable checks they are—which the Minister of Agriculture can exercise on the activities of the Board. He has power, I believe I am right in saying, under the 1949 Act to appoint four independent members to the Board if he so desires. They may represent trade interests, they may represent consumer interests, but they are appointed as people who take an independent view of the matter.
I believe that those checks are sufficient to ensure that the Milk Marketing Board does not exert monopoly powers against the interests of the consumers. Therefore, from all points of view, because of the work the Board has done on the producers' side and because of the good work that, I believe, it will do on the distributive and consumers' sides, I hope that the Government will not have second thoughts about the decision on the Board.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. Coldrick: On previous occasions I have participated in debates of this character to express the general opposition of the Co-operative movement to the setting up of these producer boards, and I want to reiterate some of the arguments that we think

should be adduced on behalf of the consumers against conferring these monopolistic powers on a body of people who have an interest of their own in any decisions the Board may take.
I am not unmindful of the fact that when the Milk Marketing Board was established there was a pathetic state of things existing among the small producers, but I think it is particularly unfortunate that the farming community, being incompetent themselves to create an organisation to do the work they should do, have the audacity to come to this House and ask us to confer upon them statutory powers in order that they may exercise monopolistic privileges.
That they are monopolistic is evidenced by the fact that we had to make special provision to exempt this particular Board from investigation by the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission. Therefore, there can be no question at all but what these self-appointed people are able to exercise a complete monopoly in this direction.
There was apathetic state of things, with unco-operative, unco-ordinated activities, so that a large number of small farmers were reduced to a state of penury, because of the undue influence exercised by some of the larger distributors who took advantage of that much vaunted virtue competition, forcing the small farmers to sell at uneconomic prices. Unfortunately, however, when we conferred upon the producers themselves the right to create a Board, instead of limiting its function to the production of milk and the selling of that milk at a certain stage to another body that would be responsible for the distribution, we gave to that Board the power to determine the prices and the agencies through which it should be distributed.
Milk is a very important article of Food and we are proud of the work which the Ministry of Food did during the war and afterwards in supplying the people, and particularly the children, with that very nutritious drink of food. But, unfortunately, we know that the Milk Marketing Board was not altogether concerned merely with the consumption of liquid milk. As has been stated in this House on many occasions, before the war we had the anomalous position where millions of people could not afford to drink good liquid milk and at the same


time the Milk Marketing Board was selling surplus milk at about 3½d. per gallon in order that we should have umbrella handles and things of that kind made.
I know from experience that it was much more profitable to get that cheap milk and turn it into casein and sell it to manufacturers than to supply good raw milk to the people. Therefore, I think it positively dangerous to confer on a body which is not responsible to Parliament and the people of this country the powers invested in the Milk Marketing Board.
When the White Paper was put before the House I asked a Question about subsidies and their payment in future. I understand that up till now the subsidy on welfare milk and school milk has been paid after the auditing of the accounts of the people who supply the milk. I received no answer to my Question, but I am entitled to assume from the White Paper that if the Milk Marketing Board again receives these powers, then in future the Board itself will be empowered to carry out an audit or an investigation into the accounts of distributors before it determines what the subsidy should be. That is conferring on that body rights which it should not exercise.
It seems to me quite reasonable to suggest that a commission should be established which would enjoy universal confidence in its decisions. That commission should consist not merely of producers of milk, who have everything to gain from fixing prices by themselves, but also of representatives of the consumers and the distributors. I believe that such a body would enjoy far greater public confidence than ever any producers' marketing board is likely to enjoy in this country.
I suggest, for these reasons, that just as this House has declared very firmly that it is not prepared to hand over the mines to the miners or the railways to the railwaymen or any other great service to people who have in their power the right to make decisions profitable to themselves, so we should say emphatically to the milk producers and the whole farming community that we will no longer invest them with powers that should be invested in somebody responsible to this House, whose activities could be called to account.

9.40 p.m.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: The House will be interested in hearing such a speech from an hon. Member on the other side of the House. We can well understand his detestation of monopoly rights. No doubt the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Coldrick) has been completely logical in what he has said tonight compared with the way in which he cast his votes many dozens of times since 1945. He voted against nationalisation of coal, nationalisation of transport, of electricity, of gas and all those things. I feel quite sure he did, but perhaps he can confirm that because, if I am wrong, I would not like that to go down on the record. Would he please tell the House if I am wrong?

Mr. Coldrick: Surely the hon. Member will distinguish between an organisation that embraces the whole of the community and an organisation set up to serve an exclusive number of the community.

Sir I. Orr-Ewing: I still have not had an answer to the simple question I posed to the hon. Member. Am I right in assuming that he voted against nationalisation of the enterprises of which I have been speaking? I want to establish that perfectly simple point. It is a little difficult to get a definite answer. Quite obviously, the hon. Member is a little evasive on that point.

Mr. Coldrick: Not at all.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: Surely the hon. Member is aware that the miners themselves have not been entrusted with power to run the mines.

Sir I. Orr-Ewing: I entirely agree. Nor has it ever been suggested that the farm workers should be entrusted with the control of the Milk Marketing Board.

Mr. W. M. F. Vane: Nor the cows.

Sir I. Orr-Ewing: Nor the cows.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East complimented the Ministry of Food, but did not compliment the farm worker on the work he did to encourage the cow to produce milk. The hon. Member did not, in fact, oppose nationalisation of coal, iron and steel and the rest but, by


supporting those Measures of nationalisation, he supported a very large measure of monopoly.
It is no use saying that the community owns the coal, the railways and iron and steel. What about the consumer who is affected by the activities of these nationalised industries? Is the hon. Member really satisfied with the consumer organisation protecting consumer interests? Is the consumer able even now to choose the coal most suitable to his industry? Is he able to choose the train which will be fast enough for him?

Mr. Coldrick: What relation has this to the Milk Marketing Board?

Sir I. Orr-Ewing: When hon. Members opposite—I do not think there are many of them—abuse the proposal to give back powers in a modified form to the Milk Marketing Board, they should examine the question of how, otherwise, we are to get a suitable milk market in this country, how we are to help supply milk to be distributed at a reasonable price and by a reasonable organisation unless we have something of this nature.
The hon. Member was also assuming that this House was not to be in the picture in regard to the structure of any future Milk Marketing Board. He has entirely forgotten what are the rights of this House in this matter. I am sure my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food will correct me if I am wrong; the rights of this House consist in the perfectly simple fact that we can strike out any marketing scheme and it cannot be put into operation until the Minister has given final approval.
It is necessary for the House to give approval before a scheme can operate. That would be the time for the hon. Member to make his speech against monopoly. We shall look forward to resounding speeches at the big conferences of the Co-operative movement telling members of that movement that they should not get together to protect themselves nor to get better training because that is a crime.

Mr. Coldrick: I am most amused at the argument the hon. Member is putting forward, but it has no relevance to the Milk Marketing Board. It indicates a lack of knowledge of the Co-operative movement as that movement is prepared to accept, and must accept, everyone as a

member. Will the hon. Member address himself to the fact that these boards are exclusive? They are confined to those who produce milk and the producers themselves determine the price, and so forth. What relationship or comparison that has with the Co-operative movement, which is open to all to join, just baffles me.

Sir I. Orr-Ewing: I do not think that all the members of the Co-operative movement would agree that they entirely control the price structure of the Co-operative movement, but that is another matter. Nor would I agree that the users of the services supplied by nationalised boards can control the prices they charge for those services. Of course they cannot do so. But in this case I do not think that the House—one cannot prophesy—would ever begin to agree to approve a marketing scheme where the interests concerned, including the consumer interests, were not represented on any board responsible for the management of a milk scheme.
Equally, I do not think that the farmers themselves—or the farm workers, whose livelihood and standard of life is dependent on a sound economic structure in the milk industry—would accept being dictated to by consumers and trade interests about what should happen within the marketing board. Of course they would not. It would be quite crazy.
Some people say we have had too much farming from Whitehall. I hope that we are not to get too much farming from the back benches in this House. I want to see good farming carried on by good farmers with the help of a sound organisation for their milk production, with the smallest possible gap between producer and consumer. Unless we have that I for one, and I think the majority of hon. Members, would never accept a marketing scheme and that scheme would never be allowed to go to the milk producer to give a single vote upon it. I think that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East, with all his background, must have had several nightmares when he thinks over his past.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Coldrick) can take some consolation from the fact that apparently it is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food who


is to reply and it is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture who is to remain silent.
I do not think I can intervene without passing some comment on the disintegration which is taking place on the benches opposite. We had a savage attack on the Prime Minister today from Conservative back benchers. Last Friday there were hon. Members who failed to support their Government, and Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries who ought to have been within 90 minutes call of this House, but who were not there. The week before the Government were de-feated, because the back benchers would not rally to their support. Tonight, so far as I can see, this matter has been raised only to provide an opportunity to criticise the Government.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: It is not a savage attack.

Mr. Willey: This disagreement between hon. Gentlemen opposite is becoming endemic. If it goes on, clearly the Government cannot last much longer and the marketing proposals contained in this White Paper do not merit our serious consideration. But I wish to say a few words on them in case this Government should survive the attacks being made on it from behind.
After all, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) has called attention to the troubles this Government have got into. Hon. Gentlemen opposite ought not to say anything about the N.F.U. I spent last week in the countryside, and I was appalled at the feeling which has arisen over the Government's policy. I know people who are friendly disposed towards the Minister—and so they ought to be—who cannot understand what is happening.
The hon. Gentleman referred in general to this White Paper. Let me mention some of the things which are dealt with. Take eggs for example. Why on earth have we no scheme about eggs? What is more preposterous than, with eggs costing 6¾d., they are being subsidised? Where on earth are we getting to? We are getting an interim scheme introduced and—just as the hon. Gentleman says about milk—we have everyone concerned with eggs saying that it is hopeless and the Government have fallen down and there is still nothing being done.
Just before we started this Adjournment debate we had a short debate on sugar beet. What could the Parliamentary Secretary say? "Well, we are thinking about it."

Mr. C. S. Taylor: On a point of order. I thought that this debate was on the Milk Marketing Board. I drew attention to the references to the Milk Marketing Board which appear in the White Paper. I did not refer to sugar beet or eggs.

Mr. Speaker: The Question before the House is "That this House do now adjourn." Within certain limits almost anything is in order, but it is not in order to revert to a previous debate on the same day.

Mr. Willey: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. I shall not revert again. I apologise for having done so. Nor shall I refer to the nationalisation of coal. What does the Parliamentary Secretary intend to do about bacon? What about the vast difference between the price of imported bacon, on which the Ministry make a tremendous profit, and the price of home-produced bacon on which the Ministry make a considerable loss? What does the hon. Gentleman intend to do about that? We ought to know.
It is no good the Government trying to appease the back benchers by saying that they intend to decontrol, unless the hon. Gentleman has made up his mind what he intends to do. What about meat? Is anyone satisfied with the proposals about meat? I have not met anyone who is. The proposals have upset everybody. This White Paper has appeased the unthinking back benchers who had been pressing for decontrol. It has exposed the Government who have given no serious thought to the matter and it has upset every quarter of informed opinion. There is not one proposal in the White Paper which has brought any satisfaction to anyone in the trades and industries affected.
As the hon. Member for Eastbourne said, this White Paper has upset the milk distributors. I do not know what authority Mr. Clifford had for writing his letter to us, but I know that he expressed the feeling common among milk distributors throughout the country. Milk distributors are worried about the simple fact that the amount of milk which is distributed has fallen, and looks likely


to fall considerably further as a result of these proposals.
Milk distributors want to make their profits fairly by distributing more milk. They do not want to argue, as they have been arguing with the Ministry of Food, that they should be compensated for their lack of profits owing to reduced volume of milk they are distributing. Is not that the position which they are now in? There was a drop of 30 million gallons during the first year of this Government and there is likely to be a similar drop this year. That is what the distributors are worried about.
They are also worried about the further decline that there will be if the proposals of the White Paper are implemented, as they fear that they will be. The crucial issue is not whether there will be a producers' monopoly or not. There are arguments about what form milk marketing should take, but I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House accept the proposition that there must be the orderly marketing of milk.
The only people who oppose that are backwoodsmen in the Tory Party. According to their doctrinaire beliefs, there should be freedom for the operation of the law of supply and demand. That proposition is not accepted in intelligent circles even within the party opposite.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill):Will the hon. Gentleman clear up the main point? Is he in favour of the policy of restoring powers to the Milk Marketing Board?

Mr. Willey: I shall come to that point. I am in favour of the restoration of orderly marketing provisions. That is not begging the question. When the hon. Gentleman asks me whether I am in favour of restoring the powers of the Board, I want to know upon what conditions that is suggested. I want to know what the White Paper means.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: Surely the hon. Gentleman does not say that he supports me?

Mr. Willey: I might serve a worse cause than could be served by supporting the hon. Gentleman when he happens to be right. It is obvious that the hon.

Gentleman has profited by a study of the Lucas Report, and that is commendable.
The Parliamentary Secretary, in putting a question to me, is really asking me if I advocate a return to the pre-war position. The answer is "No," and it must be "No." Why? This is where the distributors are concerned and upset. Before the war the price support of the farmer depended upon the retail price support. That was most unfair to my constituents. The larger the family, the more milk they consumed and the greater the subsidy they gave to the farmer. I believe the subsidy should be supported by the taxpayers. My reply to the Parliamentary Secretary is that I support a return to orderly marketing, provided that that can be done while maintaining the present retail price levels or even restoring the former levels. If that cannot be done, we have to reconsider the position.
First of all, therefore, I want the Parliamentary Secretary to answer a question. I asked it of the Minister of Agriculture, but he could not reply, and later the Chancellor avoided answering it. What does the White Paper mean? This is a simple question. Are we to have a continuation of the present subsidies and the present level of subsidies on milk? I want a fair and frank answer to that question.
To develop the reply, it seems to me that, if the Parliamentary Secretary is not going to evade saying "Yes" to that answer, we face the question which faced the Select Committee on Estimates when it inquired into the Ministry of Food Estimates. That is why I could not give such a simple reply as some hon. Gentlemen opposite expected me to give. If there is a very large or, at any rate, a substantial element of subsidy, particularly if it is supported by taxation, it is unreal to talk about the restoration, simply, of the powers of Milk Marketing Board. The view of the Select Committee on Estimates was right that it would be wrong—I am not entering into any argument about producer boards and commodity commissions—for it simply to be left to a producer board if a large element of taxpayers' money was concerned.
It is for this reason, among others, that we ought to have something better than the White Paper. It is no use saying,


as the White Paper does, that the exercise of this power must be subject to necessary safeguards. We want to know what is the essential problem before the Government. If they tell us tonight that they simply do not know, the sooner they get out the better, because we cannot have agriculture left in this way. It is unfair to the Minister of Agriculture and his Parliamentary Secretary. We cannot have this improvisation, because it is destroying the essential confidence of the guarantees. The farmer is entitled to security, but that security depends upon a settled policy. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary tonight to tell us, first of all—and it is a reply to which we are surely entitled—the amount of the subsidy on milk which is to continue under these proposals.

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kaberry.]

Mr. Willey: Secondly, if the answer is that the present subsidy is to continue, then what is the form of machinery which is to operate the marketing control? I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that these are fair questions, and, if the Parliamentary Secretary cannot answer them, it means that the Government have only added chaos to confusion by publishing this White Paper.

10.1 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): It was not unamusing to hear the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) referring to the disintegration which he saw in front of him, bearing in mind that the two speeches we have heard from the benches opposite—his own and that of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Coldrick)—revealed a wide divergence even on the issue of the restoration of the powers of the Milk Marketing Board. I see that the hon. Gentleman is frank enough to recognise that difference.
First, the hon. Gentleman for Sunderland, North did his best to get as close as he could to the statement of his right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), pleading for the restoration of the functions and powers of the Milk

Marketing Board to their old form. Again and again, his right hon. Friend prodded the Government upon its tardiness and apparent reluctance to restore these powers in their entirety.
But what does the hon. Gentleman do today? He hedges about a sound marketing organisation, and does his best to dodge around the White Paper from eggs to meat and then to bacon, because he has not the courage or consistency to face up to the commitments into which his own side had entered. Indeed, as I hear hon. Members opposite from time to time, I really wonder how deep is their devotion to the policy of guaranteed prices and markets.
I am not now referring to the unusual position of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans), but to the statements that are made, and the questions that are put from time to time, which show that the party opposite is unwilling to face up to the domestic implications of that policy.
I want to deal, first, with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor). He expressed, in temperate terms, a natural anxiety on the part of an important section of the milk industry, and I want to deal with his doubts and anxieties in terms of the White Paper. He referred to the difficulties before the war; for example, the cumbersome machinery of the committee of investigation. He referred to the fact that the Milk Marketing Board had begun, in pre-war days, to participate in manufacture, and was more deeply involved in manufacture and could be involved in such a way as to compete with those at present in that field.
I want to make this quite plain. The Government's policy is the restoration of full marketing powers to the Milk Marketing Board, subject to certain important provisos. It would be difficult in this changed world merely to return to the position as it existed before the war. There are many factors that lead to that conclusion. For one thing, the Milk Marketing Board, during the war years and since, has been the owner of the milk. Before the war, its position was one of a trio in a tripartite contract. That position has to be looked at again. There is the fact that over the last 10 or 12 years there has been compulsory


allocation of milk by the Ministry of Food. That has to be looked at again in the light of post-war conditions.
Further, there is a subsidy of £90 million going to milk. It consists of two parts:the schools and welfare subsidy, £41 million, in round figures; and the general milk subsidy, £49 million. The very fact that £90 million of public money is passing to that industry as subsidy is a new circumstance which must be taken into account today.
Thirdly, there is the policy for which successive Governments have been responsible, the safe milk policy, and the expression that that policy has had in particular margins as rewards for achieving particular qualities. Other interests need to be safeguarded, including those of manufacturers and distributors.
The essence of what I want to say is that though the Government have made plain their policy of restoration, the task now begins of examining the safeguards which need to be instituted—to quote from the White Paper itself—
for the Exchequer, the consumer and other interests.
The White Paper goes on:
Thus, the continuance of an element of consumer subsidy will involve approval by the Government of the level of prices and of distributive margins.
The controlled retail price, and the price paid as the result of the February Review under the Agriculture Act, 1947, are obviously new factors in the situation.
We regard the next phase as one of examination and consultation with the bodies concerned, including distributors and manufacturers, of the problem of what safeguards are necessary in order to meet present conditions and circumstances within the framework of the policy of the restoration of the powers of the Milk Marketing Board. The Government attach real importance to this next phase. My hon. Friend put forward his own particular proposal of a board which would be predominantly a producers board, but there are all sorts of difficulties in the way of that. Other hon. Members put forward the suggestion of a milk commission, others a distributors board with some consultative arrangement between producers and distributors boards.
There is no commitment as to a particular way. The present phase is one of consultation and examination with the parties concerned of ways and means of achieving this end. Let us not assume that there is essential hostility between producers and distributors. Marketing boards in Scotland have achieved something quite close and friendly in the matter of liaison between them.
We believe that with good sense and good will safeguards can be devised which will meet the proper representations of the distributors and of the manufacturers. We are very mindful of the valuable and important part played by the Milk Marketing Board and by the distributors. The latter's margin during the war years and since has been a very narrow one. Perhaps I could give the exact figure. The cost of milk has doubled since before the war, and the cost of distribution has gone up by less than one-third.
Apart from its other functions, the Milk Marketing Board has made great strides in artificial insemination, grass drying, milk recording, and other aspects of dairy husbandry. So we have, I think, to work out and think out ways and means of doing the two things—restoring powers to the Board in the light of current conditions and circumstances, and making the proper safeguards for the distributors and manufacturers.
My hon. Friend referred, somewhat fearfully, to the control that the producer board would have over the price paid for milk by the manufacturers. Let me say at once that such is the increased rate of production of milk that the manufacturer will tend to be in a stronger position in this matter. In any case, the rate of payment for milk for manufacturing purposes must stand as a matter of common sense to be determined between the producers and the manufacturers.
Of course, the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, perhaps in a moment of pardonable exaggeration, said that there was only one problem confronting the distributors, that of the fall in the consumption of liquid milk. His hon. Friend knows more about the subject, so he did not make that rather absurd point There has been a fall in consumption. In 1951–52, the amount of milk sold for liquid consumption was 1,569 million gallons. If we take the following year,


we find that the figure was 1,535 million gallons. The difference of 34 million has to be related to over 1,500 million.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North says that the drop in the consumption of liquid milk is wholly responsible for the difficulty in which the distributors find themselves. That is the sort of flippant nonsense we hear from the hon. Gentleman when he is scarce of material, and which we heard from him tonight in a typical speech.
There is only one other thing I wish to say and that is with reference to milk production. Production has gone up by over 30 per cent. The volume of liquid milk has gone up by almost 80 per cent., and most of the milk now sold is clean and safe. The welfare milk scheme and the milk in schools scheme have been of outstanding nutritional value.
I want to refer to the point made by the hon. Gentleman about the operation of the welfare milk scheme in relation to the restoration of powers. The word used in the White Paper is "operation." Let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Milk Marketing Board pays the money today as the agent of the Ministry. As we see it at the moment, the Board will continue to pay the money, but we shall look at the question of the identification of beneficiaries.
We will look at the question, which he himself raises, about the representatives of the Milk Marketing Board, and its auditors coming and gazing at the mysteries of the accounts of the distributors. We will look at that point, as we will look at the point of the identification of the beneficiaries. What is intended here is that, in the operation of that scheme, and that operation is essentially a payment of money to the retailers, the Milk Marketing Board is likely to continue to do what it has hitherto done as the agents of the Ministry of Food, and be the actual payer of the money.
I think I have dealt with the main points raised by my hon. Friend. I recognise his difficulties, but I assure him that there will be full consultation, and further, that if there is any modification of the scheme, as indeed there must be, it must run the full gamut of stages of the marketing Acts—public inquiry, producers vote, the phases in this House and the like. There will be ample opportunity for him, as for other hon. Members, to see whether, in fact, these safeguards that will be included are really effective from the point of view that he has raised tonight.

Mr. Willey: The hon. Gentleman has not cleared my mind on one point. He has mentioned the consultations that are to be held, but will an assurance be given in those consultations that there will be no reduction of the present subsidy on milk?

Dr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman obviously asks an impossible question, in the hope that he will get a faulty reply capable of use for propaganda purposes. He wants me to say, I suppose, that there is no intention, now and for all eternity, to change the level of the milk subsidy; or he wants me, in more delicate terms, to hint at that possibility. In either case he will seek to use my answer for his own purposes.
There is nothing in that White Paper which indicates a variation in the subsidy. Indeed, the fact that I have referred to the subsidy as one of the elements of change may lead the hon. Member to draw inferences as to the present position. But I am going to give no hint as to the future, not because the future is either bright or dark, but because he will not get from me a statement of future Government intention in this field.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen Minutes past Ten o'Clock.